Oral
Answers to
Questions

NORTHERN IRELAND

The Secretary of State was asked—

Security (Northern Ireland)

Sheryll Murray: What recent assessment he has made of the security situation in Northern Ireland.

James Brokenshire: Yesterday, I laid before the House the 10th biannual statement to Parliament on the security situation in Northern Ireland. The terrorist threat level in Northern Ireland remains unchanged at severe, meaning that an attack is highly likely. The need for vigilance remains, and I pay tribute to the brave men and women who work tirelessly to keep communities safe.

Sheryll Murray: I thank the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Kris Hopkins), for meeting me recently, when I was able to tell him about my constituent. I understand that the Secretary of State is unable to discuss that individual case, but does he agree that any security review must take account of such legacy cases?

James Brokenshire: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and I know that she has met my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary to discuss the issue. The approach to individual cases is clearly the operational responsibility of the police, but I agree that we must find a better  way to investigate legacy cases. The requirement for the Police Service of Northern Ireland to investigate the past puts pressure on its ability to police the present. That is why I remain committed to moving ahead with the Stormont House legacy bodies, which I believe will provide a much more proportionate response to the need to get to those issues.

Nigel Dodds: The Secretary of State will be aware of recent footage that has emerged of dissident republicans, heavily armed and carrying rocket launchers, in Ardoyne, part of north Belfast, near where Michael McGibbon was murdered recently. It was a scandalous and appalling display. Does the Secretary of State agree that the police, who have been very quick to arrest and charge people for very minor breaches of parading legislation, really need to get a grip on those kinds of displays and arrest and pursue   people, because the people in these communities absolutely do not want those kinds of displays of paramilitary activity?

James Brokenshire: I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman’s sentiments. The video is utterly repugnant. In my statement yesterday, I pointed out that support for such dissident groups
“remains limited, despite their attempts to seek legitimacy in a wider society which continues to reject their use of violence.”—[Official Report, 6 December 2016; Vol. 618, c. 12WS.]
That contemptible video was intended to be a show of strength, but I see it as a sign of weakness, and it is important that the PSNI continues its investigations.

Nigel Dodds: I agree with the Secretary of State and commend the widow of Michael McGibbon, who has spoken so bravely against these people, and who has, unfortunately, been forced out of her home. Her words are a ringing endorsement of the peace process and the political process in Northern Ireland. On tackling dissidents, the cross-border joint agency taskforce, set up under the “Fresh Start” agreement, is doing great work. I would be grateful if the Secretary of State could update us on the work that it is doing to tackle dissident republicans and other criminal gangs.

James Brokenshire: The right hon. Gentleman is right to mention the very brave testimony of Joanne McGibbon. Our thoughts are with all of those who have lost loved ones to terrorism. This House should continue to send out that strong and important message. The joint agency taskforce, which brings together different agencies to confront organised criminality and those linked to terrorism, is doing very good work, and we need to do more of it.

Laurence Robertson: Given that the threat level in Northern Ireland is still severe, is the Secretary of State satisfied with the level of intelligence-sharing in the Province?

James Brokenshire: Some very good work is taking place among our agencies in Northern Ireland, as well as those in the Republic of Ireland. That is in a stronger position. Of course, there is still room for further improvement, but significant seizures of arms and weaponry have been made as a consequence of that work. It is important to underline that.

Sylvia Hermon: My constituent, Austin Hunter, was an outstanding journalist who covered the security situation in Northern Ireland for many years. He was not only a brilliant journalist and a great family man, but a remarkably fine man in his own right. Will the Secretary of State take this opportunity to join me—and colleagues from across the House who will have known Austin Hunter as a distinguished journalist in Northern Ireland—in sending condolences to his family, who are absolutely devastated by his death in a tragic traffic accident in Bahrain over the weekend?

James Brokenshire: I thank the hon. Lady for that. Although I did not have the privilege of meeting Austin Hunter, I know, from all the powerful testimony that I have heard, not only that he was an incredible journalist, but how warm and human he was. It was a tragic accident, and I join the hon. Lady in sending my condolences to his friends and family, and everyone who knew him. He clearly made a remarkable contribution, and he will be missed by so many.

Theresa Villiers: People who give information to the police about terrorist activities have saved many lives in the past, and continue to do so today. Is it not entirely wrong to claim, as some groups do in Northern Ireland, that any case that involves an agent somehow also involves police misconduct?

James Brokenshire: My right hon. Friend is absolutely correct that we save lives as a consequence of the support of people in communities, often at great personal cost. That should be recognised, in terms of some of the really powerful intelligence that is provided and the impact that it has.

Tom Elliott: I congratulate the Police Service of Northern Ireland and other security agencies on stopping a number of terrorist attacks. Would the Secretary of State give us some information on whether dissident terrorists are still recruiting and increasing in numbers in Northern Ireland?

James Brokenshire: As the hon. Gentleman will have seen in my written statement yesterday, at there is an enduring threat from terrorism, which is why I underlined the need for vigilance. Support for those terrorists remains limited, but we must continue to be aware and confront it in every way, which is why I pay tribute to the work of the Police Service of Northern Ireland and the successes that have been achieved. Equally, however, we must remain absolutely focused on security issues, which underlines the points that I made in yesterday’s statement.

Ranil Jayawardena: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is important that service personnel, who put their lives on the line for our security on a daily basis, including former paratrooper Lance Corporal J, who was arrested and questioned in November last year, or other former members of the Parachute Regiment who had to go to the High Court to battle against detention and extradition, should not face legal reprisals, which may be taken for political reasons?

James Brokenshire: I hope that my hon. Friend understands that I cannot comment on individual cases. I will be unswerving and unstinting in underlining the huge contribution of our armed forces in helping to bring about the peace that we enjoy today. Part of that is the rule of law. Where there is evidence of criminality, it is important that the rule of law is upheld, but I know very clearly the incredible contribution that many members of our armed forces have made.

Deidre Brock: Does the Secretary of State agree that the prospect of a hard border would provide opportunities for organised crime and would cause additional problems for the security services, including police services? Does he therefore agree that it is essential that Brexit does not result in a hard border?

James Brokenshire: The hon. Lady has heard me say on a number of occasions that I do not want a return to the borders of the past. Part of that, yes, is about the politics, but it is also about how we ensure that that  continued good relationship between us and the Irish Government is maintained, and security is a key factor in that.

Security Service Personnel (Northern Ireland)

Ian Paisley Jnr: What discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues on the protection of data relating to security service personnel who are based in Northern Ireland.

James Brokenshire: The safety and security of all those serving in the PSNI, prisons and security forces in Northern Ireland is of the utmost importance to this Government. We keep under careful review arrangements and advice to support their protection.

Ian Paisley Jnr: I thank the Secretary of State for his answer. He will know from his previous role that any breach of the security data of a member of the security services poses an obvious threat and risk to them and their families. Will he undertake a desktop review of all data handling and the security of postal communications between the Northern Ireland Office and security personnel, both former and serving? Will he also undertake to press this matter with the Department of Justice, as they must join up with the NIO to tackle this?

James Brokenshire: The hon. Gentleman has raised an individual case with me, and I shall write to him with my response. I do take the security of information relating to people who serve by guarding and protecting us very, very seriously. I meet the military, the PSNI and the Justice Minister; I undertake to raise the importance of ensuring the appropriate protection of the personal data of security force members at the next meeting, and to consider the issue further.

Stormont House Agreement

Craig Whittaker: What steps he is taking to build consensus across Northern Ireland on establishing the legacy bodies included in the Stormont House agreement.

James Brokenshire: I continue to meet victims groups, the Executive and others to establish the legacy bodies set out in the Stormont House agreement. When I am confident that there is sufficient political consensus, I intend to move to a public phase, to allow wider community consideration, and to build confidence and momentum behind the creation of the new legacy bodies.

Craig Whittaker: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is vital that the legacy bodies in the Stormont House agreement operate in ways that are fair, balanced, impartial and proportionate if we are to counter the one-sided focus on cases involving the state, whereas over 90% of deaths in the troubles were caused by terrorists?

James Brokenshire: My hon. Friend makes a powerful and important point. I agree that the legacy bodies must be balanced and proportionate. That was at the  heart of the phraseology in the Stormont House agreement and will be important in delivering that more balanced approach.

Conor McGinn: Part of addressing the legacy of the past is breaking down divisions that exist today. Will the Secretary of State therefore join me in expressing sympathy to the family of Danny Murphy, the secretary of the Ulster Gaelic Athletic Association, who died this morning and who worked tirelessly to build peace and reconciliation and to bring people together through sport? He is a loss to all of us and to that vital work.

James Brokenshire: I thank the hon. Gentleman for drawing to the attention of the House the sad death of Danny Murphy. I am sure all of us extend our condolences to his friends and family. It is worth reflecting at this time on the powerful way in which sport can unite people and bring them together.

Gavin Robinson: Does the Secretary of State recognise the sheer hypocrisy of republicans who seek 100% transparency on 10% of the deaths in the troubles, but offer none in return? Until they do, and until they offer the assurance that they will give information about the killings, deaths and murders that they were responsible for, it will be incredibly difficult to build the consensus that we need.

James Brokenshire: It is important for everyone to work together to move the process on. That is why I continue to commit significant efforts and work to doing just that. The hon. Gentleman is right: at present, the system is heavily focused on the 10% rather than the 90%, and the balanced, proportionate measures that I put forward will assist in changing that.

Mark Durkan: First, I associate myself with the tributes paid both to the fine journalist Austin Hunter and to the fíor Gael Danny Murphy, who was such a good servant of community relations and reconciliation. Would the Minister not do better in building consensus if he did not revisit pejorative remarks that give offence to victims of state violence? In relation to having a balanced approach, surely having a stronger provision in respect of thematics would be much better—one that was not restricted to killings, as other measures are, but would examine the patterns and practices of paramilitaries.

James Brokenshire: The hon. Gentleman will be well aware that the legacy bodies contemplated cover a range of issues. Yes, of course, part of this is about investigation, and part is about more information and consideration of the issues to come forward in a number of different ways. That is why it is a priority that we move forward with the Stormont House bodies, and why that remains a key focus for me.

David Anderson: One of the most serious omissions over the past years has been the failure to address the desperate plight of people who have been seriously injured as a result of the troubles, and who have been unable to work and therefore unable to build up second pension provision. Notwithstanding what the Secretary of State said about the need for  political consensus, will he meet me and representatives of the WAVE trauma centre to see how we can work together to try to resolve this tremendous anomaly as quickly as possible?

James Brokenshire: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising this issue. I have met with the WAVE trauma centre previously, and look forward to continuing engagement with it. I am conscious of the issue of pension rights. Discussion is continuing with the Northern Ireland Executive, and I will continue to seek to gain the necessary consensus to make progress on this important issue.

Northern Ireland Office: Leaving the EU

Liz McInnes: How many civil servants in his Department have been assigned to work on issues relating to the UK leaving the EU; and how many additional civil servants his Department estimates it will need over the period leading up to the UK leaving the EU.

Kris Hopkins: Officials across the whole Department are working to ensure that the interests of Northern Ireland are protected and advanced as the UK prepares to leave the EU. We will continue to monitor what further support is required.

Liz McInnes: The Northern Ireland Office did little preparation for Brexit, and it appears from the response to a written question that I tabled that several private consultancy firms are profiting from this lack of preparation. How many contracts have been awarded to consultancy firms and external organisations?

Kris Hopkins: I know of no external contracts being issued.

Mike Wood: Will my hon. Friend update the House on what action his Department is taking to promote business and community engagement ahead of Brexit?

Kris Hopkins: There is constant dialogue between business, local government and the voluntary sector, and the NIO has been used as a conduit to make sure that Cabinet members and colleagues fully understand the implications for Northern Ireland, and that we get the best possible deal for Northern Ireland.

Jim Shannon: The agricultural and fishing sector in Northern Ireland creates some 70,000 jobs. It also produces 3.25% of Northern Ireland’s gross value added, which equates to £1.1 billion at basic prices. Could the Minister confirm that civil service personnel will be in place in sufficient numbers to ensure a smooth transition for the UK out of the EU?

Kris Hopkins: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that question. We do recognise the importance of that sector in Northern Ireland. There is a good dialogue between the sector and the Department. Cabinet members have met leading food manufacturers and members of the agricultural sector, and that dialogue will continue.

David Anderson: Recent reports in the United States show that advice given by our civil servants to the US State Department prior to the referendum was that it need not do any preparatory work, because “Brexit can’t possibly happen, so don’t worry about it.” Was the same crass advice being given by the NIO to our partners, and especially to the Irish Government?

Kris Hopkins: I do not recognise the comments that have just been made. We have an extremely good relationship with the Irish Government. We will continue that dialogue and work with them.

Businesses (Northern Ireland)

Bob Blackman: What steps he is taking to consult businesses in Northern Ireland on strengthening the Northern Ireland economy.

Kris Hopkins: The Secretary of State has established a business advisory group to help understand the economic priorities of the Northern Ireland business community. A series of sectoral meetings have already been held with key industrial sectors, including the agricultural food sector, manufacturing and the creative industries.

Bob Blackman: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. What impact will the Government’s industrial strategy have in revamping the private sector in Northern Ireland, and what discussions is he having with the Executive on this topic?

Kris Hopkins: It is important to recognise the huge contribution—some £23 billion—that is incorporated in the industrial strategy, and also to recognise the movement and growth in private sector business, with some 14,410 jobs created in the last year alone.

David Simpson: I am sure the Minister will agree that the lowering of corporation tax in Northern Ireland will certainly help the economy and companies. However, will he also agree that one area we all need to concentrate on is productivity and the recruitment of new apprentices?

Kris Hopkins: I do recognise the points the hon. Gentleman makes. We are working closely with the Executive to raise productivity. They have a really important budget coming up, and we have made a commitment of around £250 million of capital investment to assist in that process.

David Rutley: Does my hon. Friend welcome the additional £250 million of capital expenditure that is being provided to the Northern Ireland Executive in the autumn statement? Does he agree that it will create a real opportunity for the Executive to invest in important infrastructure?

Kris Hopkins: I completely agree with that statement. There has been huge growth in jobs in Northern Ireland—nearly 60,000 new jobs since 2010. We need to keep  building on the great steps that have been made, and the Government working with the Executive is a key part of that.

Margaret Ritchie: May I, too, associate myself with the condolences offered in respect of Danny Murphy, who was my constituent for many years? He was a powerful force for reconciliation and mutual understanding, not only on the island of Ireland but between Ireland and Britain. Could I also ask the Minister to consider the recent report on apprenticeships from the all-party group on the visitor economy, with particular reference to fiscal flexibilities?

Kris Hopkins: May I offer my condolences to Danny Murphy’s family as well?
I recognise the impact that tourism has on the hon. Lady’s constituency. The Mourne mountains are a great attraction, and the Newcastle air show in the first week of August is really important for the local economy. I hope that I can also make a contribution to that in the near future.

Owen Paterson: The campaign to give powers to the Assembly to reduce corporation tax united all political parties in Northern Ireland and pretty well the whole of business in Northern Ireland. A business in Craigavon told me that it would double its turnover and its workforce if the rates were down to those of the Republic. Will the Minister guarantee that he and the Secretary of State will use every opportunity to push the Assembly and the Executive to get this through?

Kris Hopkins: I recognise the contribution that my right hon. Friend has made in trying to achieve this. It  is right that we challenge the Executive, and fiscal responsibility is an important part of that process. There is an important budget coming up at the moment, and there is ongoing dialogue between the NIO and the Executive.

Stormont House and Fresh Start Agreements

Edward Argar: What progress has been made on the implementation of the Stormont House and “Fresh Start” agreements.

James Brokenshire: Good progress has been made on implementing the agreements. This includes legislation on welfare reform, a joint agency taskforce to tackle crime, an Executive strategy to disband paramilitary groups, and an independent reporting commission to report on progress towards ending paramilitary activity.

Edward Argar: Both agreements contain important provisions to place the finances of the Northern Ireland Executive on a sustainable footing, which is vital to the continued economic success of Northern Ireland. Will the Secretary of State enlarge on progress in these specific areas?

James Brokenshire: I think that we have made significant progress. Considering the position this time last year, there have been important steps forward, but there are still additional steps to be taken, including the establishment  of an independent fiscal council to publish an annual report on the Executive’s finances and to give further assurance on progress.

Jeffrey M. Donaldson: May I associate myself and my colleagues with the tributes paid to Austin Hunter and to Danny Murphy?
Will the Secretary of State give an assurance that he will not allow the Stormont House and “Fresh Start” agreements to be unpicked? Crucially, in relation to legacy issues, will he hold fast on national security and not allow those who want to rewrite the history of the past to do so?

James Brokenshire: I am very clear on the need to continue to make progress in relation to Stormont House and “Fresh Start”. There have been significant steps forward. Equally, though, I will not be party to a rewriting of the issues of the past, and that is why a proportionate approach is required.

Danny Kinahan: Part of the Stormont House agreement involves the legacy issues. Almost weekly, news items prejudice up-and-coming cases by giving just one side of the story. Will the Secretary of State take action so that we do not have future cases prejudiced by stories in the newspapers, or will he pause the legacy issues?

James Brokenshire: It is important that the rule of law is clearly upheld and that appropriate investigations are undertaken. However, I make the point that I made earlier about the imbalance within the existing system: 90% of those who lost their lives lost them as a consequence of terrorism. That is why the new bodies are important to deliver a balanced, proportionate approach.

UK Decision to Leave the EU: Ireland

Mary Robinson: What discussions he has had with the Irish Government on the implications of the UK’s decision to leave the EU.

James Brokenshire: I have met and will continue to meet counterparts in the Irish Government as we prepare for the UK’s exit from the EU. The UK-Irish relationship has never been stronger. In the coming months we will deepen co-operation and secure a deal that works in the interests of Northern Ireland and the best interests of the island of Ireland.

Mary Robinson: In recognising the closeness and importance of the relationship between the United Kingdom and Ireland, will my right hon. Friend assure the House that while there can be no question of Ireland negotiating with the EU on behalf of Northern Ireland, ultimately any process should serve to strengthen and enhance existing relationships with the Republic?

James Brokenshire: I am very happy to give that assurance. Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom, and the UK Government will continue to speak on its behalf in their negotiations with the EU.

Alasdair McDonnell: May I associate myself with the condolences to the families of Danny Murphy and Austin Hunter?
Does the Secretary of State recognise the real need for bespoke and in-depth protection for all aspects of the Good Friday agreement, or the Belfast agreement, and the need—[Interruption.]

John Bercow: Order. The hon. Gentleman is asking about protections for Northern Ireland in respect of the Good Friday agreement. I say to the hon. Member for North East Hampshire (Mr Jayawardena) that this is a very important matter that the hon. Member for Belfast South (Dr McDonnell) should be able to articulate for his constituents with a respectful audience.

Alasdair McDonnell: Does the Secretary of State agree that there is a real need for bespoke and in-depth protection for all aspects of the Good Friday or Belfast agreement, and for the constitutional principles in annex A of the agreement to be given full recognition in any future UK-EU treaty? Northern Ireland’s unique interests will in no way be satisfied by a mere consultation with the First and Deputy First Ministers.

James Brokenshire: The Government stand by their commitments under the Belfast agreement and subsequent agreements. There are fundamental issues such as consent. I can say to the hon. Gentleman in terms that we will not do anything as part of the negotiations that unpicks or seeks to undermine those essential values contained in the agreements.

Gregory Campbell: The democratic reverberations that have echoed around Europe since the end of June no doubt affect the Irish Republic as well. Will the Secretary of State ensure that the particular circumstances that exist in Northern Ireland regarding the border with the Irish Republic are at the forefront of his mind in negotiations as we go into 2018?

James Brokenshire: I can give the hon. Gentleman that assurance about the significance and importance of the border issue. A critical aspect of our approach is that we do not see a return to the borders of the past.

David Anderson: Last week, in response to a written question on the status and rights of UK state pensioners living in the Republic of Ireland post-Brexit, I was told by Department for Work and Pensions Ministers that that was a matter for negotiation. They simply do not know what the future of those people is. What will the Secretary of State do to get this issue resolved as a matter of urgency? Is this not yet another example of why he should be a permanent member of the Brexit team, not just an add-on?

James Brokenshire: I can say to the hon. Gentleman in terms that we are playing a key role in ensuring  that there is a UK-wide negotiation and that the interests of Northern Ireland are heard loud and clear in  those preparations. One of the aspects of that is the Ireland Act 1949—the rights of Irish citizens in the United Kingdom—and that is part of the work that we are doing.

PRIME MINISTER

The Prime Minister was asked—

Engagements

Philippa Whitford: If she will list her official engagements for Wednesday 7 December.

David Lidington: I have been asked to reply. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is visiting the Gulf Co-operation Council summit in Bahrain.
This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall have further such meetings later today.

Philippa Whitford: Yesterday’s signing of a memorandum of understanding with Houston spaceport and the Rice Space Institute brings the reality of a Prestwick spaceport closer, with the huge boost that that could give to the UK aerospace industry. Will the UK Government join the Scottish Government in supporting an Ayrshire growth deal to literally get this off the ground?

David Lidington: I can certainly assure the hon. Lady that the Government are looking keenly at the opportunities for Scotland, and indeed the whole United Kingdom, arising from the possible future development of commercial space operations. The Ayrshire project that she has described will, I am sure, be examined closely by my ministerial colleagues who are particularly concerned about this area of policy. We definitely want to see the UK as a pioneer in seizing these new commercial opportunities.

Peter Bottomley: Perhaps thinking of rail passengers trying to get to their jobs, the general secretary of the TUC has spoken about “shafted and abandoned” workers, while Unite’s Len McCluskey is doing a UKIP dance move by resigning before trying to return. Will my right hon. Friend encourage union and other political leaders to tell the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers that 250 people with guaranteed employment should not be putting the lives, jobs and safety of 600,000 Southern rail passengers at risk?

David Lidington: I am sure that my hon. Friend speaks on behalf of thousands of rail passengers in his constituency and many others in the south of England. It is deeply disappointing that some unions are threatening to strike over the Christmas period. The Government are now investing record amounts in improving our railways—up to £40 billion over the next five years—and we need everyone in industry, both management and unions, to work together to secure the best deal for passengers.
I have to say that the RMT’s action shows co-ordinated contempt for the travelling public, and it seems designed to do nothing except to bring about the maximum damage to people’s lives—[Interruption.] There is some heckling from Opposition Members. The Conservative party is on the side of rail passengers, and I hope that the Labour party will join me in saying to the rail union  leaders, “Sort it out, put the travelling public first, stop the squabbling, and tell your members to get back to work.”

Emily Thornberry: I am sure that the whole House will want to join me in commemorating the 75th anniversary of the Pearl Harbour attack, in which thousands of American service personnel and civilians died. The next day, Winston Churchill summoned Parliament to debate the British response and said:
“It is indispensable to our system of government that Parliament should play its full part in all the important acts of State”.—[Official Report, 8 December 1941; Vol. 376, c. 1358.]
These words are a vital reminder that even at a time of crisis—in fact, especially at a time of national crisis—the role of Parliament is central.
In the same spirit, we welcome the Government’s decision to accept our motion today; they will show Parliament their plan for Brexit before article 50 is triggered. May I ask the Leader of the House one central question about this plan: do the Government want the UK to remain part of the customs union?

David Lidington: I join the hon. Lady in marking the anniversary of Pearl Harbour and remembering all those who lost their lives at that time, and also in marking—with a sense of some celebration, even—the fact that Prime Minister Abe is joining President Obama in going to Pearl Harbour. He is the first Japanese Prime Minister so to do, and that sign of reconciliation and putting ancient conflicts behind them is welcome.
To turn to the hon. Lady’s point about Europe, the Government have always made it clear that we would seek to give additional clarity about our position at the earliest opportunity, but it has been the case, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has said many times, that one of our core objectives will be to secure the maximum freedom for British companies both to have access to and to operate within the single European market.

Emily Thornberry: I thank the Leader of the House for that answer, but I respectfully say to him that surely on this issue the answer should be straightforward. We all know that it would be a disaster for British business if we did not remain part of the customs union. The Leader of the House said himself in February:
“Everything we take for granted…—trade…without customs checks or paperwork at national frontiers…—would all be up in the air... It is massive what is at risk.”
On this side of the House, we would agree with him—we could not agree with him more—so can he put it beyond doubt and tell us right now: do the Government want the UK to stay in the customs union?

David Lidington: The hon. Lady and I—she is right—both argued passionately for the remain cause during the referendum. What separates us now is that I am part of a Conservative Government who are working together to respect the democratic verdict of the British people and to secure the best possible outcome for the prosperity and security of the entire United Kingdom from the negotiations, whereas the hon. Lady, even just two months ago, was telling us that she wanted
“to go back to the British people in some way”.
She needs to decide whether she accepts the democratic verdict or not.

Emily Thornberry: Of course we accept the democratic decision of the British public—[Hon. Members: “Ah!”] Of course we do. The difference between our side of the House and the Government side is that we want to leave the European Union on behalf of 100%—on behalf of the whole of this nation.
We really need a straightforward answer to a straightforward question. Leaving the customs union would mean having to check every container coming in at Dover. It would mean UK firms having proof of origin tests whenever they export to Europe. It would mean chaos and it would mean gridlock for cross-border supply chains. As the Leader of the House said in May, I believe about lamb and beef exports:
“They go tariff free, they go without any extra…checks…you cannot guarantee any of that if we are outside.”
Again, Labour Members agree with what he said six months ago. The question is: does he still agree with himself?

David Lidington: I thought it had not escaped even the hon. Lady’s attention that there has been a rather significant referendum since February. That changes the context in which we are now having to operate. We face a deep, challenging and wide-ranging negotiation, and it would be harmful to the national interest for me or other Ministers to engage in the sort of detailed exposition of our negotiating position that she is now pressing upon me. None of the other 27 Governments are doing that; nor should we.

Emily Thornberry: Dear oh dear. We are not asking for details; we are asking about a central plank of the negotiations. If the right hon. Gentleman cannot give us an answer on the customs union—[Interruption.]

John Bercow: Order. Both the questions and the answers will be heard. If the juvenile behaviour could stop, that would be really helpful to the scrutiny process.

Emily Thornberry: We have not had an answer on the customs union as a whole, so may I ask the right hon. Gentleman a question about one specific point? Since 1993, there have been no customs checks on the land border between Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic. In May, when visiting Northern Ireland, he said that if the UK
“were not part of the customs union…there would have to be customs checks at the border.”
He also said that for anyone to pretend otherwise
“flies in the face of reality.”
Will he confirm that that remains the position? If that is right, he really must make it clear today that the Government are determined to avoid that situation.

David Lidington: The Prime Minister and the Northern Ireland Secretary have repeatedly made it clear that we want the very long-standing common travel and free trade arrangements across the Irish border to continue, as indeed do the Irish Government. We are actively engaged in talking both to the Northern Ireland Executive and to the Government of the Republic of Ireland about those matters. There is goodwill on all sides towards trying to reach a solution that works for people north and south of the border.

Emily Thornberry: The Leader of the House has made the familiar arguments—he cannot give answers; it is all to be resolved through negotiations; Brexit means Brexit; Brexit means breakfast—but that was not what the Secretary of State for Brexit said when he was asked about the customs union in September. He said that he had looked at the matter carefully and that
“that is exactly the sort of decision that we will resolve before we trigger article 50.”—[Official Report, 5 September 2016; Vol. 614, c. 54.]
If the Government are going to decide their position on this issue before 31 March, will the Leader of the House confirm that the British people and the British Parliament will be told some answers to my questions before the Government tell the rest of Europe?

David Lidington: If the answers sound familiar, it might be because we need constant repetition before the hon. Lady understands and appreciates the principal argument. The Government are at the moment engaged in a consultation with more than 50 sectors of United Kingdom business to ascertain precisely which aspects of European Union membership work well for them, which they see as harmful and where the opportunities beyond EU membership lie. We will come to a decision and we will go into negotiations on behalf of the full 100% of the United Kingdom population and all four nations of  the UK.

Emily Thornberry: The fact is—the Leader of the House knows it, as do we all—that he can consult as much as he likes, but the answer will come back that we should be part of the customs union. It is hugely disappointing that on a day when the Government are committing to greater transparency on their intentions for Brexit, we are getting the usual stonewalling. We have a Government who are promising to tell us the plan while refusing to give us answers to the most basic of questions, and who are promising to give Parliament a say while spending we do not know how much taxpayers’ money across the road in the Supreme Court trying to stop Parliament from having a say on this. In short, we have a Government who cannot tell us the plan because they do not have a plan. In February, the Leader of the House said that what he was hearing from the leave campaign was “confusing, contradictory, nonsense”. My final question is this: are we hearing anything different from the Government today?

David Lidington: We will publish, before article 50 is triggered, a statement about our negotiating strategy and objectives, as the Prime Minister said yesterday. The hon. Lady seems to be in a state of utter denial about the consequences that flow from the referendum decision. No other EU Government are seeking to reverse or question the legitimacy of that vote in the way that she and a number of her colleagues are still trying to do. I am afraid that that just indicates how distant the Labour party now is from any aspirations to be back in government again. We watch them in action, quarrelling like “Mutiny on the Bounty” as re-shot by the “Carry On” team. [Interruption.]

John Bercow: Order. There is far too much noise. I want to hear the words flowing. There is no reason why the Chair should be denied the hearing of these matters. It is very important.

David Lidington: They are rudderless. They are drifting on Europe, as on so many other aspects of policy. It is little wonder that so many decent working people, who for generations looked to Labour to be their champion, have given up in despair and are turning to the Conservative party as the authentic voice of working families.

Bob Blackman: In 1943, a 16-year-old girl was forcibly taken to Auschwitz-Birkenau, where she witnessed the horrors of the death camps. On liberation, she came to this country with her mother. She raised a family and became a nurse. She dedicated her life to making sure the people of this country and beyond know the horrors of the holocaust. Last week, that lady turned 90. Kitty Hart-Moxon is with us today at Prime Minister’s Question Time.  Will my right hon. Friend join me, and I think the whole House, in wishing Kitty a very happy belated birthday, and thank her for her lifetime of dedication to raising this important issue? Will he also pay tribute to the Holocaust Educational Trust, which does everything possible to ensure we all remember and bear witness to the horrors of the worst part of the 20th century?

David Lidington: First, I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this important issue. I would like to join him in marking the achievements of Kitty Hart-Moxon and the Holocaust Educational Trust. I can never forget the impact of discovering, as a schoolboy, that two of the boys in my class had fathers who survived Auschwitz. It is only a couple of generations ago that Europe was plunged into this unspeakable horror. It is important that not just the Holocaust Educational Trust but all of us play our part in ensuring that the memory of the holocaust lives on, and that the wider lessons of that dark period in our history are learned. I would be grateful for the support of all Members, right across the House from all political parties, in working together to ensure that that vital work continues.

Angus Robertson: Some of the most deprived communities in the country are in Glasgow, yet today we learn that apparently the Government plan to close jobcentres in those very communities, in Parkhead, Bridgeton, Easterhouse, Castlemilk, Langside, Anniesland, Cambuslang and Maryhill. Is it true that the Government are planning to close these important offices and bring misery to the lives of the many tens of thousands of people in Glasgow who currently use these centres?

David Lidington: Clearly, the Department for Work and Pensions, like every Department, looks from time to time at its estate and the number of offices it has, but the right hon. Gentleman makes a perfectly reasonable point on behalf of people in Glasgow. I will ask my right hon. Friend the Work and Pensions Secretary to contact him with the details he is seeking.

Angus Robertson: I am sorry but that is not good enough. [Interruption.] I am being heckled while standing up for deprived communities. That will ill behove Tory Members in Scotland.
The Leader of the House is correct that the Department has plans to cut the estate by 20%, but it is planning to cut it by 50% in Glasgow. Why are the Government planning disproportionately to cut vital jobcentres in some of the most deprived communities in our country?

David Lidington: The key element in any such decision that a Department has to make is not the raw number of offices there should be but how accessible the offices and the services they provide continue to be for the people who need to use them. I am absolutely confident that that criterion is at the heart of my right hon. Friend’s thinking in planning for the future of offices in Scotland and everywhere else in the United Kingdom.

Amanda Milling: Passengers on the Chase line face chaos and utter misery every autumn, and this year it has been worse than ever. Delayed, cancelled and overcrowded trains are leaving passengers stranded at stations and making them late for work and school. Will my right hon. Friend outline what measures the Government are taking to penalise poor-performing train operators?

David Lidington: I sympathise with my hon. Friend and her constituents, and all passengers who come across these problems on the Chase line. It is clearly unacceptable, and it is important that the operator works hard to secure a rapid and sustained improvement. The Government have introduced new rules to ensure that rail passengers will soon be able to claim compensation if their train is more than 15 minutes late, but as the Transport Secretary said yesterday, more needs to be done, and we want to see much closer working right across the railway industry so that this kind of problem can be resolved much more swiftly.

Deidre Brock: Does the Leader of the House agree with the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg) that Brexit offers an opportunity to remove pesky emissions standards? In the red, white and blue of Brexit, will his Government still commit to continued tough targets to protect our environment, or will tackling global warming become just a load of hot air?

David Lidington: The Government remain utterly committed to both national and global ambitions and targets on climate change. Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, in her previous job, played a key role in brokering the Paris agreement last year—the first ever global agreement on climate change. I hope that the hon. Lady would welcome the fact that we are going to be ahead of our targets and ambitions in delivering on the proportion of electricity provided by renewables in this country and that we continue to work to get our carbon emissions down.

Peter Bone: There has been much talk recently about paying for access to a tariff-free single market. I think that that is a very good idea. Given that the UK is the fifth-biggest economy in the world and we have a £70 billion trade deficit with the EU, would the excellent acting Prime Minister tell the House how much the EU should pay for tariff-free access to the UK’s single market?

David Lidington: I thank my hon. Friend for the upgrade, but I hope that that does not turn out to be a career-limiting compliment. He makes a good point in that a settlement at the end of our negotiations that maintains maximum access to and freedom to operate within the European  market—for UK companies elsewhere in Europe and European companies here—is in our mutual interest. I hope that will inspire negotiators on both sides.

Patrick Grady: How does closing Maryhill jobcentre in my constituency, one of the most deprived parts of the country, help my constituents who want to find a job? Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that travelling further to other centres will mean increased costs for people already on the lowest incomes and an increased risk of sanctions? Why do the Government continue to target the poorest and most vulnerable in our society?

David Lidington: If the Government have been targeting the poorest and most vulnerable, it has been to get them back to work in record numbers and to provide a boost to the pay of people on low incomes through the introduction of and the increase in the national living wage. I wish the hon. Gentleman was prepared to welcome and celebrate those achievements.

Andrew Bridgen: As we are about to commence the most important negotiation for decades, does my right hon. Friend agree that forcing the Government to disclose their negotiating strategy at this stage is rather like showing one’s hand of cards to an opponent before a game of poker. I urge him to take no advice from the Labour party; it has only one card to play—and it is always the joker.

David Lidington: We have always said that we would come up with some more details about our strategic aims going into the negotiation, but it would harm our national interest if we were to go into the sort of detailed explanation of our negotiating position that the Opposition urge upon us. That is not how any of the other 27 Governments are either acting or thinking, and we should learn from that example.

Nigel Dodds: Does the Leader of the House agree that tonight’s vote on the Prime Minister’s amendment, which we fully support, is a vote of the highest significance and greatest importance, because for the first time right hon. and hon. Members will have the opportunity to vote on whether they respect the will of the people of the United Kingdom and whether they will get on and implement it? People will be able to read in tomorrow’s Hansard who stands by respecting the will of the people of the United Kingdom. Does he also agree—I am sure he will—that the more red, white and blue he makes it, the better for us on the Unionist Benches?

David Lidington: As so often, the right hon. Gentleman makes a powerful and important point. The vote tonight will be the first opportunity for Members to decide whether or not they support the Government’s timetable for triggering article 50 by the end of March 2017. Any right hon. or hon. Member who votes against that motion will, in my view, be seeking to thwart the outcome of the referendum in the most profoundly undemocratic fashion.

Kit Malthouse: This country’s nuclear deterrent is our ultimate defence, and it must be maintained at all costs, yet hundreds of my constituents who work at the Atomic  Weapons Establishment are currently on strike or work to rule in a dispute over pensions. These are people who, more often than not, have devoted their entire working lives tending our nuclear defence and to whom promises were made during privatisation. Will the Leader of the House commit to sit down with the Prime Minister to review the situation to ensure that those promises are being kept?

David Lidington: I will certainly ensure that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is informed about this matter. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise these concerns on behalf of his constituents. My understanding is that the proposed changes to the Atomic Weapons Establishment pension scheme are a matter for the company as the employer, but I can assure my hon. Friend that my right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary has been in close contact with AWE throughout the process and has also met the trade unions. He is now carefully considering recent developments to see what else might be done.

Anna Turley: I know that the whole House will join me in sending heartfelt sympathies and condolences to the family of David Brown, from Eston, who, aged just 18, took his own life. The inquest into his death has heard that he did so on the day he was due to sign on at the jobcentre, after saying that he felt “belittled” by staff despite actively looking for work and seeking an apprenticeship. Shortly before taking his own life, he told his mum:
“The way the Jobcentre treat people, it is no surprise people commit suicide.”
Will the Leader of the House undertake to review that individual case? Will he also undertake to take stock of six years of brutal welfare reform, and look into the way the Department for Work and Pensions treats its most vulnerable constituents, particularly young people?

David Lidington: Let me first express my own unreserved sympathy for the family of David Brown. No parent, no family, should have to go through that kind of shocking experience.
Clearly, human beings in any organisation sometimes make decisions that get things wrong, and I will ask the Department for Work and Pensions to have a look at the particular case that the hon. Lady has described. However, I have to say to her that I think the principle remains right that while staff should always behave with courtesy towards people seeking to claim benefits, it is also right for us to expect people who are receiving benefits to be subject to the kind of disciplines that apply to people in work even if they are on low pay. There is a principle of fairness here, which is what lies behind the approach that the DWP takes.

Rehman Chishti: I applaud the Prime Minister’s vision of a Government for all, but, as chair of the all-party parliamentary group for communities engagement, I can tell the House that fewer than 4% of those on  the boards of the companies in the FTSE 150 are  from ethnic minorities. Will the Government support  a vision of helping to increase that proportion to  10% by 2021?

David Lidington: It is clear that boardrooms should do more to reflect the reality of modern Britain. The Government certainly support the principle of increasing the diversity of boards, which is why we are supporting the business-led ethnic diversity initiative chaired by Sir John Parker. We strongly encourage businesses to act on Sir John’s recommendations.

Tracy Brabin: The response to a recent freedom of information request shows that Pinderfields hospital has diverted ambulances destined for its accident and emergency department to Dewsbury hospital, in my constituency, 61 times in the past 12 months. Dewsbury is scheduled for a downgrade next year. In the light of evidence showing that Pinderfields cannot currently cope, will the Leader of the House pledge urgent Government support to keep Dewsbury A&E open?

David Lidington: The NHS is certainly busier than it has ever been in its history, which is why it should be a matter of thanks and tribute to hard-working NHS staff that 90% of people going to A&E are still being seen within the four-hour target. The point about the configuration of local services in any part of the country is that they need to be driven by local clinicians through trusts working together with the clinical commissioning groups, who manage and understand what is needed in each locality. Local authorities, through their health committees, have the right to call in proposed changes in services and refer them to the Secretary of State if they are uncomfortable with them.

Craig Williams: I know that my right hon. Friend will agree with me about the importance of the creative sector to our economy. That, in conjunction with the Welsh language, makes S4C, or Sianel Pedwar Cymru—which is currently based in my constituency—hugely important to the Welsh and British culture and economy. Will my right hon. Friend reaffirm the Government’s commitment  to protecting the S4C budget while we review the future of the Welsh language broadcaster?

David Lidington: We are fully committed to the future of Welsh language broadcasting, and to S4C. I am pleased to say that the licence fee settlement that we have agreed has provided financial certainty, protecting S4C’s funding at more than £74 million a year for the next five years. We are absolutely committed to ensuring that the channel continues to make first-class shows and serve Welsh-speaking audiences in my hon. Friend’s constituency, and, for that matter, throughout the United Kingdom.

Naseem Shah: Is the Leader of the House aware of reports of Rohingyan children being massacred and thrown into fires, of Rohingyan women being raped, and of houses being razed to the ground? What representations have the Government made to the Burmese authorities or the military in that regard?

David Lidington: Those reports from Rohingya are extremely concerning. As the hon. Lady knows, there is a long history of discrimination against the Rohingya people in Burma. British Ministers and the British embassy and officials in London make our concern very clear at regular intervals to the Burmese authorities.

Steve Double: Following the revelations in the BBC “Panorama” programme, Clinton House in my constituency is now closed. Three further care homes run by the Morleigh Group have now been rated as inadequate by the Care Quality Commission and two others are under inspection. Concerns have been raised about these care homes for many years, and it cannot be acceptable that it took the BBC to provoke the action that was desperately needed. Does the Leader of the House agree that it is now time to urgently review the role of the CQC to ensure that in future concerns raised by residents, families and staff are properly and promptly addressed?

David Lidington: Older and vulnerable people deserve the highest quality care possible. There is no excuse for services that fall short of expectations in the way my hon. Friend has described. The CQC has extensive powers in law to ensure that nobody in the chain of responsibility is immune to legal accountability, and I would expect the CQC to exercise those powers in full in this case. But my hon. Friend has made some criticisms of the CQC and the Government have been looking into ways to improve its processes and increase its efficiency. The Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington South (David Mowat), is the Minister responsible for community health and care, and he discussed this very issue with the CQC earlier today.

Geraint Davies: US satellite data show that 6% of methane from fracking is leaked through fugitive emissions. Given that methane is 86 times worse than CO2 for global warming over a 20-year timeframe, will the right hon. Gentleman support the Council of Europe’s call for the banning of fracking, or at least for a maximum of 0.1% fugitive emissions at the wellhead?

David Lidington: No, Mr Speaker. The Government took their decision to give a go-ahead to fracking after extensive consideration of both the economic and the environmental risks and opportunities involved. We are confident that fracking can be carried out in a way that is safe and does not harm the environment, but which also provides job opportunities for this country and makes us less dependent on the import of energy.

Steven Baker: I expect my right hon. Friend will be astonished, if not aghast, to learn that a succession of journalists from the BBC have contacted me seeking to create—to manufacture—stories of Back-Bench rebellion on the issue of the EU. Will he—

John Bercow: Order. I want to hear about these activities.

Steven Baker: Does my right hon. Friend agree with me that on these controversial issues the BBC should stick to its charter obligations on accuracy and impartiality, instead of seeking to create problems for the Government?

David Lidington: I am sure that my hon. Friend is shocked at the thought that anybody should look to him as a source of information about rebellions against the Government. I hope he will be able to find some comfort in the fact that the new royal charter and  agreement require the BBC to deliver impartial news—the very first time impartiality has been enshrined in the BBC’s mission.

Carolyn Harris: Having now received a response from the Prime Minister to my request for a children’s funeral fund, I was disturbed to be told that the social fund could provide a “simple and respectful funeral.” This answer is both insensitive and totally lacks any understanding of my original request. Has the Leader of the House the authority to facilitate a meeting with me and other bereaved mothers, so that we can explain to the Prime Minister exactly what we are asking for? This request is important to us as parents, many in this House and, judging from my postbag, many people and organisations across the country.

David Lidington: Burying a child must be an incredibly painful experience for any family, and I think we all pay respect to, and have enormous sympathy with, the hon. Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris). She says she speaks on behalf of thousands of parents who have had to go through that anguish. As the Prime Minister has said, there are mechanisms in place for making financial support available from central Government, and local authorities are of course free to waive funeral fees for child burials, and many of them do so. I will talk to my ministerial colleagues about the hon. Lady’s request for a meeting, and I am sure that she will receive a response to that.

Richard Graham: Good train links are vital in enabling our constituents to get to work. It is therefore incredibly frustrating  for my constituents that, of the 63 services a day that CrossCountry operates between Birmingham and Bristol, only three stop at the city of Gloucester on the way. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that when Ministers extend the train operator’s franchise, they do not allow CrossCountry to go on treating Gloucester like a leper to be avoided at all costs, and that they instead oblige the company to deliver the kind of service that every city deserves?

David Lidington: My hon. Friend is as always speaking up strongly on behalf of his constituents. Any of us who have been to Gloucester will know that it is a place we want to be able to visit frequently and easily. The Government are investing record amounts in improving our railways and, in his particular case, Transport Ministers are working with CrossCountry and Great Western to see how the Gloucester service can be improved.

John Bercow: Order. We come now to the 10-minute rule motion, and I want to point out very gently—and, I hope, with proper courtesy—to the hon. Member for North East Hampshire (Mr Jayawardena) that 10 minutes is the maximum speaking time. There is another matter for debate today that is somewhat preoccupying the House, and there is no obligation on the hon. Gentleman to speak for the full 10 minutes if he does not feel inclined to do so. The House would be very sympathetic and understanding if he refrained. We will see.

ELECTORAL REFORM (LOCAL ELECTIONS AND MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS)

Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23)

Ranil Jayawardena: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill applying to England to provide for the introduction of first past the post elections of mayors, the London Assembly and Police and Crime Commissioners; to require elections for mayors, the London Assembly, Police and Crime Commissioners and local authorities to take place on the same day; to abolish the election of councillors by halves or thirds to local authorities; to allow a person to be a Member of the House of Commons and to hold any elected local government office, including that of Police and Crime Commissioner, at the same time; and for connected purposes.
The word “Parliament” has a range of meanings. It can be a collective noun: a parliament of owls is the term used to describe those very wise birds. It can also describe the very wise Members of this House, an institution of our constitutional monarchy—a court or council summoned by the monarch. We sit in the mother of all Parliaments, a place where the democratically elected people of this country come together to govern for the country. This is a place where the people’s voice must be heard.
The principle that all Members of this House are elected by their constituents is a fundamental principle in our United Kingdom. The link that binds a Member of Parliament to his or her constituency is one of the most important in politics. Every citizen of this country knows that they have one single consistent point of contact in this House to champion the issues that matter to them, to their families and to our country. But, unlike many things in our constitutional settlement, this link is not an accident. It is a product of our voting system to this House. It is the first-past-the-post system that gives our constituents the certainty of knowing who their representative in this House will be. That is widely understood by the people of this country.
In the 2011 referendum, first past the post was strongly supported by the British people by a margin of more than 2:1. Its greatest strength is that every person has one vote and the candidate who gets the most votes wins. It is quick and simple to count and does not unnecessarily burden the taxpayer with equipment and administration costs. The results are declared quickly, providing certainty during turbulent times. Most importantly, voters know that the candidate for whom they voted must be sure to deliver their objectives and stand by their manifesto and will face the test of the ballot box in five years’ time.
While many in this House appreciate the benefits of first past the post, that appreciation is sadly not replicated across our country. Some say that the effect of PR can be mitigated through, for example, the additional member system, but it does no such thing. While people may know their constituency Member, they are less likely, through no fault of their own, to contact their regional Members, so the latter have all the powers of their counterparts who were elected by first past the post but, having been appointed from a party list, have less accountability and connection to the people they represent. With systems such as alternative vote, one could even  find that the person who wins actually ends up losing, which happens across the world from Irish presidential elections to elections to the Australian House of Representatives. Preferential voting means that people who should be elected are not.
As chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on Sri Lanka, I was surprised to find that a version of an electoral system invented by the Labour party is used for that country’s presidential elections. The supplementary vote system is also used for the election of police and crime commissioners and mayors across England. Once again, the candidate with less support in the first round can still end up winning. Take Lord Prescott, a candidate in the 2012 police and crime commissioner elections, he won the first round but was beaten in the second round. While I may be delighted that the Conservative candidate won, it was a day on which democracy was thwarted. The only purpose of that system is to give someone a second chance to steal votes from those who did not vote for them. In all, eight police and crime commissioners who should have been elected were not, including in Hampshire and the Isle of Wight.
Across England, we expect the very best. We want the best candidates, elected through the best system, to give us the best representation, but alternative systems of voting mean that some local areas have been stripped of their right to choose who is best. What is worse, the wishes of local people are being ignored, allowing candidates who lose to win. That will become ever more prevalent as more powers are devolved to local authorities and as more elected mayors are created through devolution. The public shall grow ever more dissatisfied with our political system. First past the post gives voters simplicity. It gives decisiveness. It gives voters constituency representation. Burke said:
“Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgement”.
Each and every citizen has a right to know what judgment will represent them. If that is true for this place, why should we expect the public to accept second best in public offices across our land?
Similarly, we elect every Member of this House on one day, so why is it not the same for our local authorities? In this House, the Government are able to plan for the long term, acting in the best interests of the people for the long term. Local authorities that elect by thirds are often in a constant state of electioneering. Every May, new councillors come on board and have to settle into a new committee structure by July, before breaking up for August, working over the autumn months, only to be back in election mode in the new year. The best interests of the people are not served by that short-termism. If all local elections were held on a “super Thursday”, voters would know that their vote would make a difference, leading to greater engagement and public interest. Such a change would also save money. The estimated saving in one of my local authorities is some £57,000 in three years out of four. If we scale that up to the 120 authorities that do not have all-out elections, that is over £20 million over a four-year term. That would be not only a boon for local taxpayers, but a commitment to strong, stable local government, which would then be free to plan for the long term.
Democracy means that the people should decide who represents them. The former Member for Manchester Central was forced to stand down in 2012, even though  he had secured a strong mandate in 2010, in order to stand as a police and crime commissioner. Let us just think of the cost! By-elections can cost up to a quarter of a million pounds, so surely it should just be left up to the people to decide who is best placed to represent them at any level of government, at any given time. Surely we want the best mayors, the best PCCs, the best Assembly Members and the best councillors. The people should be able to have their say and their voice must be heard.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Mr Ranil Jayawardena, Chris Evans, Jim Fitzpatrick, Robert Flello, David Mackintosh, Christian Matheson, Mr David Nuttall, Chris Philp, Robert Neill, John Penrose, Andrew Rosindell and John Stevenson present the Bill.
Mr Ranil Jayawardena accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 13 January 2017, and to be printed (Bill 110).

OPPOSITION DAY - [15TH ALLOTTED DAY]OPPOSITION DAY

THE GOVERNMENT'S PLAN FOR BREXIT

John Bercow: I inform the House that I have selected amendment (a) in the name of the Prime Minister.

Keir Starmer: I beg to move,
That this House recognises that leaving the EU is the defining issue facing the UK; notes the resolution on parliamentary scrutiny of the UK leaving the EU agreed by the House on 12 October 2016; recognises that it is Parliament’s responsibility to properly scrutinise the Government while respecting the decision of the British people to leave the European Union; confirms that there should be no disclosure of material that could be reasonably judged to damage the UK in any negotiations to depart from the European Union after Article 50 has been triggered; and calls on the Prime Minister to commit to publishing the Government’s plan for leaving the EU before Article 50 is invoked.
For months, Labour has been pressing the Prime Minister and the Government to set out their plan for Brexit. For months, the Prime Minister and a succession of Ministers have refused to do so, either in writing or from this Dispatch Box. Facing defeat on today’s motion, the Government have now caved in—last-minute amendments tell their own story and everybody knows it. This is a victory for common sense. I thank those from various Opposition parties who backed putting pressure on the Government to disclose their plan, and I thank the Conservative Members who, rightly, want to see far more detail about the approach their Front Benchers are intending to take.

Caroline Lucas: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman acknowledge that, by accepting the Government’s amendment to his otherwise very good motion, he is falling into a Tory trap of binding his party to supporting the invoking of article 50 by March, which is an unrealistic and increasingly arbitrary date?

John Bercow: Before the hon. and learned Gentleman responds, may I politely say that the intervention is absolutely legitimate but this is a helpful guide: if Members who are hoping to speak intervene more than once, in accordance with very long-standing practice they will be relegated on the list? That is only fair if I am to try to secure equal opportunities for all Members.

Keir Starmer: I am grateful for that intervention, and I assure the hon. Lady that I shall come to that important point in due course.
I have seen the overnight briefings, which will no doubt be repeated today from the Dispatch Box, that the Government always intended to publish their plan, but an eleventh-hour concession is an eleventh-hour concessions. I have faced the Secretary of State on many occasions and asked for a plan, and he has refused on every occasion, so nobody is going to fall for that.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Keir Starmer: I am going to make some progress, if I may. The focus is now where it ought to be: on the substance, not the process. The terms upon which we leave the EU will define us and our country for many years, and this House and the public are entitled to know the approach the Government are intending  to take.

Gerald Howarth: rose—

Keir Starmer: I will make a bit of progress and get to dealing with the amendment.
Today’s victory is important, and so is the timing. As we debate this motion, the Government’s appeal is being heard in the Supreme Court. We need to remind ourselves that the Government are arguing that this House should have no say on the question of invoking article 50—that is the argument they are presenting in the Supreme Court; through that argument, they want to remove the prospect of a vote granted by the High Court a few weeks ago. That is the core of their argument and the purpose of their appeal: to remove that vote from us. That is what they are seeking to achieve, but that would be to avoid scrutiny and avoid accountability. If the Government succeed in that appeal, this motion will be very important, because it puts grip into a process which would otherwise have none. We will only have a plan to discuss because we will not be getting a vote.

Chris Bryant: However, if the Government fail at the Supreme Court, there will have to be a legislative process. This is not a legislative process today, is it?

Keir Starmer: I am grateful for that intervention and I am coming precisely to that point, so I will press on.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Keir Starmer: I am going to get to the amendment, so that I can make my position clear on that, and then I will take interventions.
A plan will now have to be prepared, debated and subjected to scrutiny, whether or not we have a vote. That is a good thing for anybody who believes in parliamentary scrutiny. If, on the other hand, the Government lose their appeal, there will need to be article 50 legislation in the new year; a motion of this House will not suffice.
I pause here to deal with the Government amendment, on which I want to make this clear to all Members: today we are not voting to trigger article 50 or to give authority to the Prime Minister to do so. It is most certainly not a vote for article 50. Unless the Supreme Court overrules the High Court, only legislation can do that.
Nor does today’s motion preclude Labour or any other party tabling amendments to the article 50 legislation and having them voted on. The motion, as amended, would be an indication that the purpose of calling for a plan is not to frustrate the process or delay the Prime Minister’s timetable. That is what is made clear by the motion and the amendment taken together. Labour has repeatedly said it will not frustrate the process, and I stick by that. That is why the Government should  prepare their plan and publish it in time for this House to consider it when it debates and votes on the article 50 legislation. The timetable in the amendment is in fact there to put pressure on the Government, because a late plan would clearly frustrate the purposes and intentions of this motion. I put the Government on notice that I will not be slow to call them out if they do not produce a timely plan.

Peter Bone: I do not want the shadow Secretary of State to inadvertently mislead the House. We already have legislation before this House—the Withdrawal from the European Union (Article 50) Bill—which has had its First Reading and will get its Second Reading on 16 December, unless someone objects.

Keir Starmer: I am grateful for that intervention and understand the point, but let us see what happens on 16 December. The Secretary of State has made it clear on a number of occasions, understandably, that in addition to the main point of the appeal so far as the Government are concerned, which is to take away any right to vote on invoking article 50, there is a secondary intention, which is to get greater clarity on the type of legislation that may be needed in the new year. I anticipate that it is that Ministerlegislation that we will address before too long, but I do, of course, acknowledge the private Member’s Bill.

Jim Cunningham: I am glad that my hon. and learned Friend has made it clear that it is not our intention to frustrate the article 50 process, because the Government and their supporters have been putting it around that we are somehow trying to sabotage any decision on it.

Keir Starmer: I am grateful for that intervention, because what we have seen is the characterising of anyone who questions the Government’s approach as frustration. That is the wrong characterisation and it is to be avoided. Having accepted today’s amendment, I hope that I will not be intervened on the whole time by Members saying that this is an attempt to frustrate. The plan needs to be produced in good time and with sufficient detail for us to debate it, but the purpose is not to frustrate the overall process or to delay the timetable that the Prime Minister set out some time ago.

Jonathan Edwards: If the hon. and learned Gentleman accepts the Government’s amendment, is he not effectively giving unilateral support to whatever plan they decide to present, which means that Opposition Members will not be able to perform their parliamentary role of scrutinising the Executive?

Keir Starmer: I understand the hon. Gentleman’s concern, but that is not the case, and I will make that point in a moment.

Julian Lewis: Does the shadow Secretary of State agree that, if the Opposition support, or at least do not oppose, the Government’s amendment, it would be completely unacceptable and  totally inconsistent for them to do anything in the new year to delay the triggering of article 50 beyond 31 March?

Keir Starmer: I have made it absolutely clear that nothing in today’s motion precludes any party, including my own, from tabling an amendment to proposed legislation, if there is proposed legislation, and voting on it. I am astonished that some Members are willing to pass up the opportunity to have a vote in the first place and to restrict our ability to debate amendments.

David Davis: I do not want to break the hon. and learned Gentleman’s flow, but I want to make a factual point. Will he please answer the question that has just been put to him? Given that he supports the amendment, does he think it reasonable that some want to frustrate and slow down the article 50 process?

Keir Starmer: I have made it absolutely clear—and I will make it absolutely clear again—that the purpose of the motion calling for a plan is not to frustrate or delay the process. That is not why we are calling for a plan. This presents a challenge for the Government, because they now need to produce a plan in good time to allow the proper formalities and processes to be gone through. The timetable is more of a challenge for the Government than it is for the Opposition.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Keir Starmer: I am going to make some progress. I have taken a lot of interventions.
The Government must now prepare their plan and publish it. I put the Government on notice that, if they fail to produce a plan by the time we debate proposed legislation on article 50—assuming that we do debate it and that the Government do not win their appeal—amendments will be tabled by the Opposition and, possibly, Government Members, setting out the minimum requirements of a plan. In other words, we are not going to have a situation where the Government seek a vote in a vacuum or produce a late, vague plan.

Richard Fuller: I congratulate the hon. and learned Gentleman, because he is playing on a very difficult wicket. The motion states,
“that there should be no disclosure of material that could be reasonably judged to damage the UK”.
Does he therefore believe that this plan should be a series of hints, an explanation of principle or specific priorities? It would be helpful to know what he means by a plan.

Keir Starmer: I think it is pretty straightforward and I have said this on a number of occasions. I fully accept that the Government will enter into confidential negotiations for a number of months, and that producing a plan should not undermine that process. This is not the first time that I have said that; I have said it repeatedly. Some argue that we should not produce a plan because saying anything might undermine the negotiations, but I do not accept that. I do, however, accept that there is a level of detail and of confidential issues and tactics that should not be disclosed, and I have never said otherwise.
I want to put the contrary proposition, to see how comfortable Members really are with it. Absent of a plan and of us knowing the objectives and starting position, the Government would then negotiate for two years without telling us any of that detail. Are any Members of this House content not to know any of that between now and March 2019? Hands up who does not want to know that and is happy to say, “I don’t need to know. Whatever you are negotiating is fine by me.”

David Davis: The hon. and learned Gentleman is an experienced lawyer, so I am sure that putting up Aunt Sallies is old hat to him. Given that he thinks that the alternative is telling the House nothing, I ask him what he thinks of these comments, which I have made eight times to this House:
“As I have said several times in debates that the hon. Gentleman has attended”—
this was in response to the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown)—
“I will make as much information public as possible without prejudicing our negotiating position.”—[Official Report, 20 October 2016; Vol. 615, c. 952.]

Keir Starmer: I heard that point being made and I understand and respect the Secretary of State’s position on this issue and his history on issues of scrutiny and accountability. I also understand why he feels uncomfortable not disclosing the information that can be disclosed, but the motion moves the issue on and makes it clear that there will be a plan, while, of course, preserving that which needs to remain confidential.
I acknowledge that the Secretary of State made those comments and that he has said on more than one occasion that, when the Government have reached a judgment on the customs union—I assume that he also means when they have reached a judgment on the single market—they will make that position public. I therefore anticipate that the Secretary of State has no difficulty with a plan that sets out the position on the single market, the customs union, transitional measures and the like, because that is the direction of travel that I have understood him to be going in. The plan commits him to it and puts it in the framework of scrutiny and accountability that will come with proposed legislation on article 50, but I do acknowledge what he has said.

David Davis: I thank the hon. and learned Gentleman for that acknowledgment, but let me pick up on the issues that he has raised. There may be circumstances in which the criteria and aims are clear, but the individual policy is not. There may be several options and it might be in our negotiating interests to keep more than one of them open. Surely that does not necessarily require that we specify in detail any individual line of pursuit.

Keir Starmer: I understand the Secretary of State’s point. To some extent, we will probably return to this debate as and when the plan materialises, but it is important there is no mischaracterisation. Asking for a plan setting out the objectives is not to seek to undermine the UK’s negotiating hand, nor is it to seek a running commentary. It is, in fact, to seek to have clarity, scrutiny and accountability.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Keir Starmer: I am going to make progress.
The minimum requirements of a plan are fivefold. The first—I have begun to touch on this—is the need for enough detail and clarity to end the circus of uncertainty that has been going on in recent weeks on issues such as the single market, paying for access to the single market, the customs union and transitional arrangements. The pattern and rhythm of those exchanges over the past few days and weeks is clear for all to see. One member of the Cabinet says one thing one day; another member of the Cabinet says something else on a different day; then a spokesperson says that no decision has been made. We have seen that pattern over and over in the past few weeks. That uncertainty causes anxiety across the UK, in businesses, among working people, and in our nations and regions. It has to end, as it causes more damage to the process than anything else at the moment. The House, the public, businesses, working people, the media and our communities are entitled to know the basis on which the Government intend to negotiate their future.

Lucy Frazer: The hon. and learned Gentleman said that the alternative to having a plan was no information until 2019. Does he accept that in the debate on 12 October he asked the Secretary of State whether we would have the same information as the European Parliament, where there is a mandatory obligation to inform the European Parliament of the negotiations? My right hon. Friend said very clearly that the answer was yes.

Keir Starmer: Yes; good. We are working with our European colleagues on that issue, but that is after article 50 has been triggered. We are discussing what comes before. Of course, there are stages in the process. The plan is important because it is the start of the process: it sets the scene and the direction of travel. Once article 50 has been triggered, MEPs will be involved in the process, because they have a vote at the end of the exercise. I acknowledge that the Secretary of State has said on a number of occasions that whatever information they have, we will have. I should jolly well hope so. The idea that MEPs would be provided with more information about the negotiations than us would be wrong in the eyes of everyone in the House. The Secretary of State made that commitment early on, and it was the right commitment to make. He will not be surprised to learn that I intend to hold him to that every step of the way. I am sure that we will meet at the Dispatch Box to discuss precisely that.

David Davis: rose—

Keir Starmer: I have not finished dealing with the intervention from the hon. and learned Member for South East Cambridgeshire (Lucy Frazer). This is about what happens before the negotiations in the run-up to article 50. There will then be a two-year tunnel of negotiations. Then there is what happens at the end. MEPs will have a vote, and if they vote down the deal there will be no deal. I have no doubt that the Secretary of State will concede that we will have a vote in the House, because the idea of MEPs voting, but not the House, on the final deal is wrong in principle. He might be able to indicate now that there will be a vote at the  end of the process on the deal, in the same way that MEPs will have a vote, as that would be helpful for this side of the House.

David Davis: I apologise for intervening again, but we have said that procedures under the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 will apply. That is straightforward. I have said that at least three times to the House.
The hon. and learned Gentleman has asserted that there is no vote between whatever happens as a result of the court case and the ratification process. The great repeal Bill will be presented to the House during that two-year period, and after that there will be a series of consequential legislative measures, some primary, some secondary, and on every measure the House will have a vote and say.

Keir Starmer: I acknowledge that, but my response is exactly the same as my previous response. The timetable for the great repeal Bill applies after article 50 has been invoked, so that does not help us with the plan and the starting position. That is why this part of the process has to be gripped now, because what happens between now and 31 March really matters to the starting position. I accept that after that the great repeal Bill will be introduced and debated, and no doubt there will be votes on its provisions, but essentially it is a Bill that indicates what will happen at the end of the process, rather than a Bill that deals with the plan—the starting position—or the process.

Dominic Raab: I understand why the shadow Minister is pressing the Government for their plans and I understand why he is setting out his red lines. I do not understand why he wants to enshrine that in legislation. The only reason for doing that is so that the Labour party can set up the Government to be sued later. Is that not the truth—will he come clean? It is wrecking tactics by any other name.

Keir Starmer: The answer to the question is no.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Keir Starmer: I am going to make progress—I have taken a lot of interventions.
The second requirement of a plan is that it must have enough detail to allow the relevant parliamentary bodies and Committees, including the Exiting the European Union Committee, chaired by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn), to scrutinise the plan effectively. The Committee’s terms of reference include examining the Government’s objectives, so the plan must have sufficient detail to allow parliamentary bodies to conduct scrutiny effectively.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Keir Starmer: I am going to press on. Thirdly, the plan must provide enough detail to enable the Office for Budget Responsibility to do its job properly. As Members across the House know, the Budget Responsibility and National Audit Act 2011 sets out the role of the OBR: it is the duty of the OBR to examine and report on the sustainability of the public finances. Its charter states:
“The OBR’s published forecasts shall be based on all government decisions and all other circumstances that may have a material impact on the fiscal outlook.”
The Government are responsible for all policy decisions and policy costings, but it is for the OBR to provide independent scrutiny and certification of the Government’s policy costings. It states whether it agrees or disagrees with the Government’s costings, or whether it has been given insufficient time or information to reach a judgement. It is an important check and balance in the system on the spending of public money and on costings.
In its response to the autumn statement this year, the OBR made the following comment on assumptions about the cost of Brexit. In the foreword to the response, it said that it asked the Government for
“a formal statement of Government policy as regards its desired trade regime and system of migration control, as a basis for our projections”
on Brexit.
“The Government directed us to two public statements by the Prime Minister that it stated were relevant”.
The OBR was trying to do its job and obtain sufficient information to carry out its statutory functions, and has asked the Government for the relevant information. It has been directed to two public statements by the Prime Minister. In its report this year, the OBR said:
“Perhaps understandably, the Government’s response leaves us little the wiser as regards the choices and trade-offs that the Government might make during the negotiations”.
It is perhaps understandable in the early stages why that may be the case—I concede that, and this is not intended to be a cheap shot based on the OBR report—but it is important that the OBR should be able to do its job properly over the next two years or more. Unless it has sufficiently clear objectives it cannot do so. It is wrong in principle for the OBR to be disabled from discharging its functions properly. There should be enough detail for that scrutiny to be carried out.
Fourthly, the plan must have enough detail to enable the relevant authorities in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland to be assured that their particular and specific concerns are addressed. Other Members will speak about those concerns far more authoritatively than I can, but they include concerns about the single market and, in Northern Ireland, concerns about the border and related issues. The detail must be sufficient for those authorities to be assured that their concerns are understood and are being addressed. Over the past few weeks, I have visited Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland to speak to the devolved Governments as well as to businesses, trade unions and the public in meetings. I can assure the House that “Brexit means Brexit” does not come close to answering the concerns I heard or to addressing the huge, complex challenges that Brexit will pose across the UK.
Fifthly, the plan must have enough detail to build genuine consensus. That is an important point, because the future of this country is bound up with the negotiations, and it is wrong in principle for the Government to act solely for the 52%—to base its approach on the 52% or a group within the 52%. The vote on 23 June was not a vote to write those that voted to remain out of their own history. They have a right and an interest in these negotiations and they have a right to have a Government   who give weight to their interests as well as the interests of the 52%. I have said this before and I will say it again: the Government must act not for the 52% or the 48% but for the 100%, acting in the national interest. That can be achieved only if we have a national consensus.

Crispin Blunt: I am fascinated by the focus on the plan and the amount of work that the hon. and learned Gentleman will invite the OBR to do. He does understand, surely, that no plan survives engagement with the enemy. [Interruption.] That is a military metaphor from assaults. Our negotiating hand is clear, and it is clear that it is not compatible with the position taken by our 27 partners. This will all change in the course of the negotiations, and we will have to leave it to the Government to make those decisions.

John Bercow: Order. I recognise that the hon. Gentleman is an illustrious Member of the House as Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, but even so the intervention was too long.

Keir Starmer: On reflection, the hon. Gentleman may think that he did not use the right word in describing our partners as “the enemy”.
That brings me to a footnote, but an important footnote. Some of the language and tone that has been adopted by the Government and their Front Bench is not helping the prospects for a good outcome. [Interruption.] I hear the comment that that is disingenuous. I have been to Brussels. I have spoken on a number of occasions to those who will be involved in the exit, and they are not particularly amused by jokes about Prosecco; they are not particularly interested or amused by references to “cake and eat it”. They want a professional, constructive set of negotiations, and some of the comments that are being made about them and their real purposes are not helping the prospect. We have a shared interest across this House in getting these very difficult negotiations off to the best possible start, and comments along the way that are unhelpful or disparaging of our EU partners are simply not helping.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Keir Starmer: I will press on.
Until now, the Prime Minister’s two mantras that “Brexit means Brexit” and that there will be “no running commentary” on negotiations tell us nothing about the type of Brexit that the Government propose. I am not sure that the recently coined “red, white and blue” Brexit takes us any further forward. The question that everybody wants answered is, will it be the hard Brexit suggested in Theresa May’s party conference speech, or the vaguer form suggested by Cabinet Ministers when they speak of possible payments into the EU budget and provide welcome guarantees to Nissan about the prospect of arrangements that are free of tariffs or bureaucratic impediments? These are two different versions of our future that will be negotiated over the next few years, and we need to know which version we are running with, and we need a consensus.

Chris Leslie: My hon. and learned Friend is right to insist on a plan. It is important that we do not stand in the way of the will of  the British people in the referendum, but does he accept that there are many people in all parts of the House who have some doubts and misgivings about the timing of the invoking of article 50? Many people think that 31 March is simply too soon—that we are rushing into it—and that as we will not start negotiations until after the German elections, we may get only a year of negotiations. Does my hon. and learned Friend accept that there is risk in that timetable?

Keir Starmer: I am grateful for that intervention. I do understand the concerns about the timetable and I think they are shared across the House. It is a tight timetable. I accept that the purpose of the plan, or the motion, is not to frustrate or delay the process. I know that the Secretary of State equally wants to keep to that timetable, but it is an exacting timetable and it is incumbent on the Government to make sure that the deadline is met by ensuring that the plan is available as soon as possible in January 2017.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Keir Starmer: I shall press on, if I may.
The question on everybody’s lips is, is it the hard Brexit sketched out at the party conference, which was read by those in Brussels as meaning outside the single market, outside the customs union, and an arm’s length relationship with our EU partners, or is it a more co-operative, collaborative approach with our partners? I understand, and I can hear from the statements, that there is disagreement on the other party Benches about this, but we cannot go into the negotiations with that disagreement still raging. We need to go in with consensus.
I will say this loud and clear: there is no mandate for hard Brexit; there is no consensus for hard Brexit.

Edward Leigh: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Keir Starmer: No. I have given way a number of times.
In the past few months I have travelled across the UK to hold meetings with a wide range of interested parties, such as businesses large and small, different nations and regions, trade unions, working people and local communities on the question of the terms on which the UK should exit the EU. I know that the Secretary of State and his team have been engaged in the same exercise. We have been to some of the same places and regions and spoken to some of the same people. The overwhelming evidence is that they do not want hard Brexit. There is not a consensus out there for hard Brexit. If we are to reach a consensus, it must be genuine consensus that works for everybody.
The ball is now in the Government’s court to produce a timely plan that meets these requirements. That will be the start of scrutiny and accountability, not the end. If the Government fail to produce a timely and sufficiently detailed plan, they should expect further challenge from the Opposition, and I put the Secretary of State on notice that that is what we will do. Only legislation, not today’s motion, can allow the Prime Minister to trigger article 50. That will have to be debated and subject to  the full and proper procedures in this House, as the Secretary of State accepts. The motion makes it clear that although Labour will not frustrate the article 50 process, it does intend to shape the debate and head off hard Brexit.

David Davis: I beg to move an amendment, at end add:
“, consistently with the principles agreed without division by this House on 12 October; recognises that this House should respect the wishes of the United Kingdom as expressed in the referendum on 23 June; and further calls on the Government to invoke Article 50 by 31 March 2017.”
Before I speak to the amendment, let me make a few factual remarks to the Labour spokesman, the hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer). He ended by saying that there is no mandate for hard Brexit. To be honest, I do not know what hard Brexit means. The mandate was to leave the European Union. We should keep that in mind. He quite properly raised the issue of Northern Ireland. It is simply because I am standing at the Dispatch Box today that I am not chairing a joint ministerial committee of the devolved Administrations on exactly these issues. There has been considerable progress on that; I can brief him on that, if he does not know about it. Some of it, almost by definition, is confidential. He should take it as read that the process has been going on for some time and is quite well advanced.
The hon. and learned Gentleman raised the issue of the Budget Responsibility and National Audit Act 2011. He may remember that I was a Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, and I am reasonably familiar with National Audit Office and OBR operations. The condition that applies to any information that we put in the public domain—that it will not bias or undermine the negotiation—applies equally here; if we were to give information to the OBR, there would be the same telegraphing of what we are doing. It would be very inappropriate for another reason as well. This is a negotiation, not a policy statement, so where we are aiming for—I think we may be on the same page on this—may not be the exact place we end up, and I think he would understand that.

Keir Starmer: To be clear, I was not making the argument that the OBR required confidential information, the disclosure of which would undermine negotiations; my point was simply that the plan must be sufficiently detailed to let the OBR do its job in a way that lets it provide the scrutiny it is supposed to.

David Davis: I take that point. As I make progress through what I have to say, I will explain why, in some respects, that is not practical.
This debate is very similar to the last Opposition day debate Labour chose to have on Brexit, and it really is the last clause of the motion that extends beyond that. The Government and I certainly can accept the motion with the amendment that whatever plan we set out is consistent
“with the principles agreed without division by this House on 12 October”,
and that the House
“recognises that this House should respect the wishes of the United Kingdom as expressed in the referendum on 23 June; and further calls on the Government to invoke Article 50 by 31 March 2017.”

Geraint Davies: Will the Secretary of State give way?

David Davis: No, I am going to make a bit of progress. I will give way later. I normally like the badinage with the Opposition, but I have to make some progress on quite an important argument.
Dance on a pin as the shadow spokesman may, that is what the Opposition are signing up to: the Government invoking article 50 by 31 March 2017. Let us be clear about that. It has always been our intention, as I said in my intervention on him, to lay out the strategy in more detail when possible, provided it does not undermine the UK’s negotiating position.

Dominic Grieve: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

David Davis: If my right hon. and learned Friend will wait a little while, I will, of course, give way to him.
In fact, I have said that categorically in front of this House and the other House on a number of occasions, including just last week, and I am happy to confirm it again today. Our amendment also lays out an important challenge to those on the Benches opposite who say that they respect the result of the referendum, but whose actions suggest that they are looking for every opportunity to thwart and delay this. We will see today if they are willing to back the Government in getting on with implementing the decision made by the people of the United Kingdom. However, before I address the motion in terms, I will give way to my right hon. and learned Friend.

Dominic Grieve: May I emphasise to my right hon. Friend that the motion must require Parliament to support the triggering of article 50 by means known to the law? He will doubtless agree that as the law stands, that requires primary legislation. While it is possible for private Members’ Bills to be introduced, in reality it will be the Government’s duty to introduce legislation if they wish to proceed, and to do that in a timely fashion that enables proper debate on it.

David Davis: My right hon. and learned Friend, the ex-Attorney General, should know better than to tempt me to comment on a court case that is taking place as we stand here, so I will not do that, but as he well knows, we will obey the rule of law; we will obey what the Court finds. We will ensure that we do the right thing. As the spokesman for the Opposition said, one of the reasons we are waiting on the outcome is to get precisely right what it is this House has to do.

Geraint Davies: On the timing set out in the amendment, would the Secretary of State not accept that, given that the French election is in May and the German election is in October, nothing will be achieved in that timeframe? If we trigger in March, there will be negotiating time lost in the two-year window. Article 50 should therefore  be triggered in the autumn, in November, with time for a referendum on the exit package, so that people can decide on the final deal.

David Davis: No, I do not accept that. Between now and the possible end of the negotiating process, if it goes the full distance, there are 15 elections, and of course we have already had two events this weekend: a referendum and another election. There is no point in the period when there is no election under way, so it is simply not possible to meet the hon. Gentleman’s requirement.

Nigel Dodds: Is the crucial issue here not that, whatever the caveats entered by the shadow Minister, anyone voting for this amendment tonight will find impossible to justify to the public any reneging, any going back or any procrastination—anything after 31 March that seeks to delay the triggering of article 50? That is the reality of the situation.

David Davis: The right hon. Gentleman is exactly right. I agree with him entirely.

Kenneth Clarke: rose—

David Davis: To balance up affairs, I will give way to the Father of the House.

Kenneth Clarke: Quite apart from the legalities of the situation, we have to address the political question of the Government’s accountability to this House for their important policies. This word “plan” is being used in an extremely vague way, and could cover some of the vague assertions that Ministers have been making for the last few weeks. Will the Secretary of State accept that the House requires a description—published in a White Paper, preferably—of the strategic objectives that the Government will pursue, and that the Government should submit that strategy to a vote of the House? Once it has the House’s approval, they can move to invoke article 50.

David Davis: My right hon. and learned Friend is at least straightforward in what he says; he does not really agree with the outcome of the referendum. My view on this—I agree with him to some extent—is very clear. He has said that the word “plan” is vague; I think that what I have said already to this House, in terms of giving all possible information, subject to it not undermining negotiations, is actually more comprehensive. But it is not that we are not going to allow the House votes. First, we cannot do that as a Government, even if we wanted to. Secondly, as I have said, there will be a considerable amount of legislation during the course of the negotiation, which will, in some respects, confine us.

Several hon. Members: rose—

David Davis: I will make some more progress, if I may. [Interruption.] I will not give in to my normal temptations today. [Hon. Members: “Go on!”] No, no.

Chris Bryant: rose—

David Davis: Mr Speaker, I am going to make about five minutes’ progress. I hope the hon. Gentleman does not mind. [Interruption.]

John Bercow: Order. The Secretary of State is clearly not giving way at present—a point that is so blindingly obvious that only an extraordinarily clever person could fail to grasp it.

David Davis: You make my point, Mr Speaker.
It is widely accepted that the negotiation of our departure from the European Union is the most important and most complex negotiation in modern times, and it is overwhelmingly important that we get it right; I think that is common ground. It is normal even for basic trade negotiations to be carried out with a degree of secrecy. Indeed, the European Commission recognises this in its own approach to transparency in such negotiations, in which it says:
“A certain level of confidentiality is necessary to protect EU interests and to keep chances for a satisfactory outcome high. When entering into a game, no-one starts by revealing his entire strategy to his counterpart from the outset: this is also the case for the EU.”
The reason for this is to retain room for manoeuvre, including the ability to give and take, to trade off different interests, to maximise the value of concessions, and to do so without always giving the other side advance notice. We must retain the ability to negotiate with a high degree of agility and speed; the more complex the negotiation, the more parties to it, and the more time-pressured it is, the more important that is.
Any trade negotiation—and this is more than a trade negotiation—is difficult and complex. This negotiation will be another step up beyond that, for a number of reasons. First, it is about more than just trade. While that is an incredibly important part of it, our new relationship with the EU will also encompass our continued co-operation in areas such as security, justice and home affairs. Secondly, it is not merely a bilateral negotiation, but one involving about 30 different parties with a number of different interests. Thirdly, while considering our exit, Europe must also consider its own future. We have been clear that we want a stable and secure European Union—a vital partner for the UK at a time of very serious global challenges. Finally, the political scene in Europe is not set, but is changing—the point I was making. During the period of our negotiations, there are at least 15 elections and other political events that could change the backdrop to our exit process. The combination of these factors and their interplay will mean a changing climate for what are already complicated talks.

Edward Leigh: Will my right hon. Friend allow me to intervene?

David Davis: In a moment.
We will need to find a way through a vast number of competing interests to manage our exit from the Union so that our people benefit from it—that is the aim of this exercise: for our people to benefit from it.
To do that, the Government must have the flexibility  to adjust during negotiations. It is like threading the  eye of a needle: if you have a good eye and a steady hand, it is easy enough, but if somebody jogs your elbow, it is harder. If 650 people jog your elbow, it is very much harder.

Pat McFadden: The Secretary of State has just read out a list of reasons not to disclose the Government’s plan and negotiating objectives, but the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) called—rightly in my view—for a White Paper on the Government’s intentions. If the Secretary of State does not agree with him, will he at least agree with himself, because he called for the same thing before he was appointed to the job? Why was a White Paper the right thing to do in July, but not now?

David Davis: I really ought to make the people who raise this point, which has been made about five times in this House, read out what I actually said, which was that this is one negotiating option among several. The right hon. Gentleman says that I have just been giving reasons for not outlining negotiating objectives, but that is not true—I will come back to why in a minute. There is a reason not to lay out in detail some of the trade-offs and some of the options that we do have to keep to ourselves until we are in the negotiating chamber. I make this point more generally to the House. During the course of the Amsterdam treaty, we had difficult negotiations to carry out, and I kept the House up to date with every bit of that, but that was done at the right time—the appropriate time—and not when it undermined the national interest, which is the problem here.

Edward Leigh: Does my right hon. Friend accept that one can be an honest Brexiteer who wants to get this through while still wanting to proclaim parliamentary sovereignty? That is a perfectly logical point of view. I happen to agree that we want to get article 50 through without any wrecking amendments that unduly tie the Government’s hands, but can he give a commitment that in addition to votes on the great repeal Bill, when we have a final deal, the matter will come to this House for ratification?

David Davis: In fact there is a law that applies to this—the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010—so we are, in effect, bound by that.

Keir Starmer: This is important, so can the Secretary of State say in terms that there will be a vote on the final deal in this House? I understand what he says about the underpinning statutes, but can he say simply, for the record, that there will be a vote on the final deal in this House?

David Davis: All I can say is what I have said before: that is what I expect. It is as simple as that.
I want to pick up on the point about parliamentary scrutiny in a little more depth, if I may—

Chris Bryant: The 2010 Act says that a Government cannot ratify a treaty until such time as they have laid the treaty before the House and 21 sitting days have passed. It does not guarantee a vote. In fact, since 2010 the Government have on several occasions refused to allow a vote on treaties even when they have been asked for by the Opposition. Is the Secretary of State now specifically saying that the Government will guarantee a vote at such a point?

David Davis: As I was about to say—I was in the middle of a sentence—it is inconceivable to me that if the European Parliament has a vote, this House does not. It is as simple as that.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: Will my right hon. Friend clarify the point that any vote in this House at the end of the process would merely be on the deal and could not reverse the fact that we had left the European Union.

David Davis: That is entirely correct.

Gerald Howarth: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

David Davis: If my hon. Friend will forgive me, I will make a bit more progress for a few moments and keep him in mind.
All this does not mean that parliamentary scrutiny is not very important—of course it is. I, of all people, would be last to argue that. That is why I have already given three oral statements to this House and answered more than 350 parliamentary questions. It is why Ministers from my Department and I have already appeared before Select Committees on 10 occasions—I will be appearing in front of the Brexit Committee in a week. It is why the Government announced a series of themed debates, with workers’ rights and transport already discussed, and another debate coming up before Christmas. There have also been more than 15 debates about this in the other House.
However, there is no doubt that the way in which we handle and disclose information is important to the negotiating process. Needless to say, I have given a great deal of thought to how we achieve accountability at the same time as preserving the national interest. That was why at the first parliamentary Committee hearing I appeared before—I think it was the House of Lords Select Committee—I volunteered an undertaking that British parliamentarians would be at least as well served, in terms of information, as the European Parliament. As I said to the Opposition spokesman, I have said on several other occasions that we will provide as much information as possible—subject, again, to that not undermining the national interest. This is a substantive undertaking, but it must be done in a way that will not compromise the negotiation.

Helen Goodman: The Secretary of State repeats that what he is doing is—he thinks—in the national interest, but he must have heard from industrialists, as Labour Members have, that the uncertainty and lack of clarity from Ministers means that people are putting back projects and not investing. That is why the growth rate is down and the public finances are in such a mess.

David Davis: We heard during the campaign about how the economy was going to collapse, but I seem to have noticed in the past few months that really it is doing very well indeed, thank you very much. This nay-saying—this talking down the country—is, frankly, the least desirable part of the Opposition’s behaviour.

Gerald Howarth: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

David Davis: Yes, as I promised to do so.

Gerald Howarth: May I say how strongly I support my right hon. Friend? My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke), who is of course a very great national treasure, called for us to set out our strategic vision, but surely this Government have set out that strategic vision with great clarity: we want to recover control of our borders, make our own laws, keep our own money, engage in free trade, and leave the European Union. What could be more strategic than that?

David Davis: My hon. Friend is, of course, exactly right, and that brings me rather neatly to the next thing I want to say.
Opposition Members have tried to pretend that we have told them nothing, but that simply demonstrates the old adage that none are so deaf as those who will not hear. We have also been clear that we will set out more as we approach the negotiations.

Angus MacNeil: rose—

David Davis: I will give way in a moment.
As the Prime Minister said in October, although we will not be giving a running commentary—Opposition Members love that phrase—we will give clarity whenever possible and as quickly as possible. As she told the House earlier this month:
“Our plan is to deliver control of the movement of people from the European Union into the United Kingdom.”—[Official Report, 16 November 2016; Vol. 617, c. 230.]
That was the first point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Sir Gerald Howarth). I have also been clear about what this involves. Free movement of people cannot continue as it is now, but this will not mean pulling up the drawbridge. We will operate the immigration system in our national interest, with a view to winning the global battle for talent. Labour Members do not like this, partly because they cannot agree on their own policy. In the past few weeks, we have heard at least three different positions on the future of free movement from shadow Front Benchers—[Interruption.] The Opposition spokesman probably thinks there are more, as he is challenging me. It is therefore no surprise that they do not want to talk about it, but this is an important, substantive decision that reflects the will of the British people.
Similarly, the Prime Minister has said that we intend to remove the UK from the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice. That is part of the promise to recover control of our own laws. Some Labour Members do not like this because they suggest that the ECJ is the principal guarantor of basic British rights and freedoms. I have to say that that shows an astonishing lack of knowledge of our own history, in which British people fought to create and preserve those freedoms. I suppose it is unsurprising that the party that attempted to impose on Britain the most draconian piece of law in modern times—90 days’ detention without charge—has little understanding of the proper origins of freedom and the rule of law.

Angus MacNeil: As part of our determination to find out some knowledge from Ministers, it was asked several times at today’s Prime Minister’s questions whether the  UK would want to be in the customs union or not. Can the Secretary of State for Brexit let us know what his policy is? Can he give us something substantive? Is it a case of in the customs union or not in the customs union, because this was not on the ballot paper? The people did not vote to leave the customs union.

David Davis: What was on the ballot paper, and what I think a million Scots voted for, was leaving the European Union—[Interruption.] I will come back, do not worry. I am not going to sidestep the question; I never do.
The simple truth is that, as the Prime Minister said—I am a Minister of the Government, remember—this is not a binary option. There are about four different possibilities, and we are still assessing them. I have given an undertaking to the Opposition spokesman that I will notify the House in detail when we come to that decision.

Emma Reynolds: rose—

David Davis: I will make some progress and then I will give way again in a moment. There are some among the Labour party who think that leaving the jurisdiction of the ECJ will undermine employment law. Again, that shows a sorry ignorance—employment protection in the UK does not derive principally from the ECJ.

Anna Soubry: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

David Davis: No.
Nevertheless, to prevent any misrepresentation or misunderstanding, the Government have announced that they will not erode employment protections, so there can be no doubt about the situation. Labour talks about employment rights, but the Government have made clear guarantees and are bringing forward the great repeal Bill to ensure that the rights that are currently enjoyed are maintained.

Anna Soubry: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Give way!

David Davis: Clearly somebody has the support of the Labour party for what she wants to say. I will get around to my right hon. Friend in a minute.
We have been clear that the great repeal Bill will transpose all EU law into UK law, wherever practical.

Anna Soubry: rose—

David Davis: I will not give way for a second, because this point is incredibly important. No law will be changed without the explicit approval of Parliament. That is the key point to understand in this debate.

Anna Soubry: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way. On the customs union matter, did I hear him correctly? Is he saying that the Government will decide whether we will seek to remain in it or out of it,  and that then the House, or rather the Opposition, will be told what the Government’s decision is, but we in this place will have no say in it?

David Davis: My right hon. Friend was not listening; she probably made up her question before she heard the last paragraph. I said that there would be no law changed in this country without the approval of the House of Commons.
Let me come back to the issue of customs union, since it is important. There are several options on customs union. One is shown by Norway, which is in the single market but not in the customs union. One is shown by Switzerland, which is neither in the customs union nor in the single market, but has a customs agreement. A whole series of options exists, and we will come back to the House about that when we are ready.
On my right hon. Friend’s other point, she intimated that because I gave the undertaking to the Opposition spokesman, it was somehow to the Opposition, not the House of Commons. Any undertaking made from this Dispatch Box is to the whole House of Commons, and she should understand that.
A further area in which our aims have been made very clear is justice and home affairs. As I said in the House last week, our aim is to preserve the current relationship as best we can, consistent with our broader aims. That clearly extends to areas such as security and law enforcement. Even after we leave the EU, the UK and the EU will face common threats, from terrorism to organised crime. As such, I believe that there is a clear mutual interest in continued co-operation in these areas. The security of Europe will remain of paramount importance to us, meaning that we will continue to co-operate as we do now with our European partners to help to maintain it.
As for the area that has dominated the debate so far—trade and the European market—the Government have been as clear as is sensible at this stage. We have said that we seek the freest possible trading arrangements, in respect of both tariffs and non-tariff barriers. The Government’s view is that the best deal is most likely to be achieved by a negotiated outcome.

Emma Reynolds: rose—

David Davis: One moment. There is a range of means of arriving at a deal and there is a range of outcomes, and it does not make sense to box ourselves in. I am a believer in free trade, and I want to see the freest trade possible with the European Union and also with the rest of the world. We will be a global and outward-looking nation, and a leading advocate for free trade. We want to be able to embrace the opportunities of Brexit—I know that the shadow Chancellor agrees with that, although it apparently makes my opposite number “furious”—but we want to maintain the best relationship possible with the European Union.

Callum McCaig: Will the Secretary of State give way?

David Davis: Not at the moment. We have made our aims clear on immigration, on the ECJ, on workers’ rights and, in fact, on European Union legislation more broadly. We have clear aims on justice and home affairs,  on security and, finally, on trade. It is important that the House understands what we are aiming for, but it is also important that we do not close off options before we absolutely have to. Just this weekend the leader of the Opposition suggested that he would seek to tie the hands of the Government regarding certain outcomes, such as a particular status in terms of the European market. To do so would seriously undermine the national interest, because it would undermine our ability to negotiate freely.
As I said at my first appearance at the Dispatch Box in this role, Parliament will be regularly updated and engaged. Keeping in mind those strategic aims and the fact that to reveal our position in detail or prejudge the negotiations cannot be in the national interest, we will set out our strategic plans ahead of the triggering of article 50. It is well documented that when we have decided to trigger article 50, the Government will notify the European Council. As I have said on several occasions, the House was always going to be informed in advance of the process. We are happy to support the spirit of today’s motion, with the vital caveat that nothing we say should jeopardise our negotiating position.
The Government amendment underlines the timetable for our departure, affirming the Prime Minister’s intention to notify by 31 March. Many Opposition Members pay lip service to respecting the result of the referendum, while at the same time trying to find new ways to thwart and delay. The shadow Cabinet cannot even decide whether it respects the will of the people. We are well aware of the desire of my opposite number to keep his “options open” with regard to a second referendum—the most destructive thing we could do for our negotiating position at the moment.

Keir Starmer: Will the Secretary of State give way?

David Davis: No.
Today we will see whether the Opposition are prepared to back Britain and support our plan to follow the instruction of the British people and leave the European Union. The Government are absolutely determined  to honour the decision made by the British people on 23 June.

Stephen Gethins: I thank the shadow Secretary of State for his speech and for giving us the opportunity to debate this subject today. As we have said, we are keen to continue to work with him and his colleagues, and indeed with Members from across the House, where that is possible. We appreciate the remarks that he made about devolved Administrations, but, given where we are and given the Government’s comments, that is not enough for us, and neither is what has been set out.
It is 167 days—almost six months—since the referendum. We have 113 days to go until the 31 March deadline that the Government have set themselves, so we are almost two thirds of the way there. To talk about a glacial pace of progress might be something of an overstatement. So far, the Government have told us nothing. We have been told about soft Brexit, hard Brexit, grey Brexit, and, earlier today, a red, white and blue Brexit. Perhaps we will be getting a continental Brexit, to keep our   European partners on side, or even a deep-fried Brexit. We are not entirely sure. Given the timetable, it will not be a Christmassy Brexit for whoever is trying to plug the gaps in the Government’s plans.
There has been an impact, and a significant number of questions remain unanswered. They are not just questions that float out there; they go to the very heart of the Government’s negotiating position. What exactly are the Government telling their negotiating partners, if anything? Are the Government telling them that the single market is important, and that we need to maintain membership of it? Have the Government listened to their Scottish leader, who said of the single market that
“the over-riding priority is to retain access to it”?
Do the Government agree with her on that? What about the rights of EU nationals? European nationals call this country their home. They call Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland their home, and I hope that they will continue to do so. What a huge contribution they have made and continue to make. They deserve better than this continued uncertainty.
We all benefit from freedom of movement, and I hope that we will all continue to benefit from it. A large number of our industries also benefit from it, not least the food and drink industry. Scotland has suffered over the years from emigration; we have benefited more than most from freedom of movement, as I know the Secretary of State is well aware. We want to keep it. It benefits us and it will continue to benefit us. It benefits us not only financially but culturally, by enriching our communities and bringing in the people who enrich our society.

David Davis: The hon. Gentleman and I do not differ on many of these points, but I would say this to him. Allowing people access to any part of the United Kingdom, and access to work in particular, is not achieved only by an absolute rule on freedom of movement. Control of our borders by our Government would presumably be operated in the UK national interest. Why does he expect that to punish Scotland? It would not do so.

Stephen Gethins: The Secretary of State makes the point. Why not give Scotland—it needs the powers—some of the responsibility for immigration?
On that very point, the Vote Leave campaign, of which the Secretary of State was a member—a full and active member—did not promise much. It is good to see that the right hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove) is in his place, for was it not he who said that Scotland could have control over immigration if we voted to leave the European Union? I would be delighted to hear about their plans when the Under-Secretary winds up.

Michael Gove: indicated assent.

Stephen Gethins: I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman is nodding still, and I look forward to his joining us in the Lobby at some point. He can come home to his roots, and we will welcome him on this issue.
Let us not forget the impact this is having elsewhere in the United Kingdom. On jobs and the economy, Nissan has been given reassurances, but what about other industries? What about the food and drink industry? What about our fishermen and farmers, a lot of whose rules and regulations come from the European Union?  What will happen to the common agricultural policy, or to the coastal communities fund, which is so important to our fishing communities? [Interruption.] What happens, as the hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards) points out from a sedentary position, about Horizon 2020? What will happen to universities, which particularly benefit from freedom of movement? What will happen to workers’ rights, which will come back to this House, which has not always been the best place to guarantee those rights in the past? What will happen to the environment, which has also benefited from Europe?

Kevin Foster: The hon. Gentleman mentions workers’ rights. First, the Government have already confirmed that we will maintain what exists; and secondly, in many areas UK law exceeds the EU minimum.

Stephen Gethins: In many other areas, such as parental and other rights, we relied on European Union rulings. I tell the hon. Gentleman right now that I would trust the European Union a lot more than I trust this Government when it comes to workers’ rights and other rights.
We need more details. Mario Draghi, the president of the European Central Bank, has said:
“it is important to have clarity over the negotiation process as soon as possible in order to reduce uncertainty”.
The Secretary of State’s speech has not reduced that uncertainty in the slightest.
The Secretary of State made the point that no law will be changed without the say of Parliament, so let me ask him a question. He is in the Chamber, but not in his place, although his colleague the Under-Secretary is on the Front Bench. Will no law that is a responsibility of the Scottish Parliament be changed without the say-so and consent of that Parliament? That is critical, because the motion fails to take on board the impact of devolved Administrations, and a huge array of the questions lie unanswered about matters that are the direct responsibility of not just Edinburgh, but of Belfast and Cardiff.

Ian Blackford: My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech, which is well worthy of the award he won last night as an MP to watch. The Government talk about respect, but the people of Scotland voted to remain within the single market. Why do the UK Government not respect the wishes of the Scottish people and support our bid to make sure that we retain the benefits of European membership?

Stephen Gethins: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point.
I have another point—I hope the Under-Secretary has his notepad ready so that he can respond to it. We were told by the Secretary of State for Scotland just on 27 November that Scotland would be gaining “significant powers”. Will the Under-Secretary outline what those significant powers are and, to come back to the point I made earlier, whether they will include powers over immigration among others?
Scotland is a European Nation, and we are proud to be a European nation. We benefit, as we see every day in our interactions with the food and drink industry, universities, businesses and the financial sector among many other sectors. The EU benefits us in many different ways—financially, socially and even politically, because there are so many areas, such as energy and climate change, on which we agree so much more with the European consensus than we do with the Westminster consensus.
The relationship with the European Union is important and will be important in the future, but for the record it is important for us to bear it in mind that Scotland has always been a European nation. In the town of St Andrews in my constituency, there stands a statue of General Sikorski, who led the free Polish troops. We remember the sacrifice that they made, and the contribution that the Polish community has made to Scotland and to other parts of the United Kingdom. I remember the interaction between universities in Scotland and those across Europe for hundreds of years, such as the interaction between Scottish universities and those in the Netherlands and elsewhere. I also remember the Lübeck letter: just after the battle of Stirling Bridge—we are going back a bit—the first thing that William Wallace did was to tell the Hanseatic League that Scotland was open for business again. This relationship goes back a long time, and the lack of preparations for Brexit is irresponsible.
There is the Court case across the road today. I do not want to go into it too much, but the Scottish Lord Advocate will be making the arguments for the Scottish Government, and he will do so much better than I possibly could. However, I do not understand why the Government are scared of parliamentary scrutiny. What concerns them about trying to undertake what is, as the Secretary of State himself conceded, an enormous undertaking? Is it not the case that the Government governs, or so the theory goes, and that the legislature scrutinises its work—never has that been more important—while, despite what some people have said, the judiciary does not decide the laws, but carries out the task of assessing whether the rules are being adhered to? All of us in the Chamber must respect that. Similarly, it is for the devolved Administrations to have a say over areas under their responsibility.

Stewart McDonald: In the case currently going through the Supreme Court, the Lord Advocate for Scotland described the Sewell convention yesterday as
“a political restriction upon Parliament’s ability to act, no more and no less than that”.
However, has not that convention been put on a statutory footing as part of the Scotland Act 2016? Is my hon. Friend as concerned as I am about the lack of clarity from Brexit Ministers on that point?

Stephen Gethins: The Minister makes—[Laughter.] My hon. Friend—he is not yet a Minister, but let’s give it time—makes an excellent point. There is chaos, pure and simple. The chaos is the fault not of the judges but of the Government who have carried on the irresponsibility of the Vote Leave campaign by continuing to give us no details.
We are well aware that the Secretary of State does not like the use of the prerogative, but this could all have been avoided. Let us give credit where it is due: I give  credit to David Cameron—hon. Members will not hear this often from SNP Members, and, frankly, they will not hear it often from Conservative Members either—who sat down with the then First Minister of Scotland, my right hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Alex Salmond), and hammered out the Edinburgh agreement to give the Scottish independence referendum a legal footing to remove any uncertainty. I will read a little of agreement, which was agreed by the Westminster Government and the Scottish Government—and full credit goes to everybody, particularly the officials who worked so hard on it. It states:
“The governments are agreed that the referendum should…have a clear legal base”—
just imagine if the Government had done that—
“be legislated for by the Scottish Parliament;…be conducted so as to command the confidence of parliaments, governments and people; and…deliver a fair test and a decisive expression of the views of people…and a result that everyone will respect.”
It went on:
“The two governments are committed to continue to work together constructively in the light of the outcome, whatever it is, in the best interests of the people of Scotland and of the rest of the United Kingdom.”
The question is: why was there so little preparation? Was it negligence, breath-taking complacency, or did they think that everyone would be okay regardless and they did not need to bother?

Joanna Cherry: If my hon. Friend has been following the Supreme Court case as closely as I have, he will be aware that it was pointed out by senior counsel for the respondents yesterday that the Government had the opportunity to give legal force to this referendum, as a result of the amendment proposed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Alex Salmond), but they specifically said that they did not want to do so. The now Leader of the House, who was then the Minister for Europe, said:
“The legislation is about holding a vote; it makes no provision for what follows. The referendum is advisory”.—[Official Report, 16 June 2015; Vol. 597, c. 231.]
It was said quite clearly by the Government that it was their intention to make no provision for what would follow.

Stephen Gethins: My hon. and learned Friend makes a very fine point, as always.
Let me make another comparison. We are here to scrutinise the work of the Government. They put forward manifestos before elections, and we scrutinise those. No one questions the idea that the Government should try to prepare a manifesto. Before elections, officials pore over the manifestos of the parties standing, including even the no-hopers—some poor soul in the civil service has to go through the Labour party manifesto!
Whatever happened, the Government got it wrong and need to change course. That is the responsibility of the Members who campaigned for out. It is not just us asking these questions: Manfred Weber, president of the European People’s party group in the European Parliament, has said:
“I haven’t really heard how the British government want to tackle Brexit or what Brexit really means.”
The Foreign Secretary has some responsibility, and has a job on his hands. I hope everyone on the Government Benches is taking him terribly seriously nowadays, as  they have been told to do so. He is determined to make a “titanic success” of this process, but he has been telling everyone a different story. I wonder if that goes beyond the Brexit process. What about when he decides what Christmas card he should give his Foreign Secretary counterparts? Will it be a Christmas tree, or is that perhaps a bit too German? Will it be the flight into Egypt, or is that a bit too soft on refugees? Will he go for Santa on his way from Lapland with his elves, or does that give him freedom of movement problems? Perhaps everyone will just get two and be done with it.
Look at the chaos at the heart of this Government and compare and contrast it with the Scottish Government. Ireland is a hugely important partner and key nation—a partner nation and our sister nation. Charlie Flanagan told his Government’s Brexit Committee that he had no idea how the UK would approach Brexit. The Irish Minister for Jobs described the International Trade Secretary as like a husband
“who wants a divorce, but “
to
“keep all the assets and the family home.”
Compare that with the reception that the First Minister got in Dublin just last week. Compare it with the partnership that we are building. [Interruption.] Members call getting a positive response grandstanding! The Government wish they could get a positive response from a European partner. Even James Reilly, the deputy leader of Fine Gael, said:
“We are very much heartened by the fact that Scotland voted to stay in the EU. We would be very supportive of ensuring that Scotland’s voice is heard during the UK negotiations, as well as the voices of our fellow Celts north of the Border, who also voted to stay within the EU.”
The Government are in chaos, pure and simple. That chaos is affecting our day-to-day lives and will continue to do so. This is too important to let the Government off the hook about it. It is too important not to have full scrutiny, and it is too important to the powers of the devolved Administrations for it to be left purely to this place. That is why we cannot back the Secretary of State’s amendment today.

Several hon. Members: rose—

John Bercow: Order. On account of the number of would-be participants in the debate it is necessary to impose a time limit. We will start with a time limit of eight minutes on Back-Bench speeches, but I give due notice that that is not likely to endure for very long. Members can help each other, however.

Iain Duncan Smith: I will, I hope, be brief. I support the Government’s amendment, and wish to make it clear that I believe that making great pace in getting ourselves through the process and into the negotiations is the key for whatever the Government do now.
Most people, including the Opposition, fail to define what leaving the European Union actually means. They keep saying that they will not and do not want to frustrate the will of the British people, and that that means they do not want to delay the triggering of article 50. But in the same breath—with respect to the  hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer)—they go on to qualify what leaving actually means. When listening to him, the definition I heard was that he wants to be a member of everything that we are in as members of the EU now, with one or two small changes—so he does not actually want to leave. In that sense, the purpose behind what the Opposition are doing speaks more of their own problems than of the negotiations that the Government will embark on once we activate article 50. I will say more on that in a moment.
I make no bones about the fact that I voted and campaigned for the UK to leave the European Union. I believe that it is necessary for us to understand what we mean by that—to define it, and then to act on that, as some of my colleagues have already said. Leaving the European Union at its most basic will mean that we will no longer be subject to European law. From that flow the other elements that were debated during the campaign. The public most clearly want to take back control of their borders with the European Union, and to take back control of the money raised from them in taxation. Those things cannot happen if we are subject to European law. This, then, is the key element: leaving the European Union means that we are no longer subject to the jurisprudence of European law. That is really quite important. The failure of the Opposition to accept that means that they are not really in favour of leaving, and have not even accepted that we are leaving; they are debating how we stay in with modifications.
On that principle, I remind the House that the Centre for Social Justice published a report about why people voted to leave, called “48:52”. That report made it very clear—even many remainers have said the same—that the public wanted control of migration and they wanted sovereignty returned. I was quite surprised by their using and agreeing with the word “sovereignty”. We are always being told in this House that no one out there cares about sovereignty, and that it is an esoteric issue debated only here by obsessed politicians who cannot get away from the fact that no one talks about it out in the country. In fact, sovereignty was the key element that the people spoken to for the report all agreed that they wanted—to take back control, the phrase that we use endlessly when debating this matter.
We are therefore clear about what people wanted. When people say we do not know what the public wanted, that is simply not true. They do a disservice to the general public if they cannot understand what they meant when they voted to leave the European Union. The public were very clear on that. I have heard the Liberals go on about how people voted to leave but did not vote for a destination. Leaving is a destination. It means we are in control of ourselves. This country is not moving. It is staying where it is, but we will no longer be subject to European law. Playing silly games does not help anyone to believe that, fundamentally, politicians understand what they are going through.
Given all that, there is no point during any of the negotiations in our trying to ask the European Union for something that it simply cannot and will not give us. This is the main point. There is no point going to the EU and saying, as a point of special pleading, “We want to be out of the European Union and are going to  be free to make our own laws, but will you let us stay in the single market, and can we stay in the customs union?” I fully understand the position of those of my colleagues who want to stay in those elements. That is a wholly reasonable position, but if we are leaving the European Union, staying in those two things does not stand. More importantly, I would not want to, because that would again bring us under the control of the acquis communautaire, and not being so is one of the main reasons for leaving. The Opposition asked for enough detail. The strategic aim is on those points—that is enough detail.
On the customs union, I come back to this simple point. Why would the United Kingdom want to stay in the customs union when one of the key elements behind making the important decision to leave the European Union was getting back the opportunity to make our own trade arrangements with other countries? I would rather we stayed in than stay in the customs union. It seems completely pointless to embroil ourselves in the customs union—to go through all of the rigmarole, arguments, debates and rows, only to find that at the end of the day we do not have the jewel in the crown of our making free trade arrangements.
On that point, I have something interesting to say to the House. I discovered the other day that there are now no fewer than five elements of legislation—three Bills, I think, and two amendments to Bills—going through both the House of Representatives and the Senate that pave the way for a free trade agreement between the US and the United Kingdom. So much for the current President’s view that we will be at the back of the queue. It appears that the legislators in Congress see us wholly at the front of it. They know the reason why: we are the great free trading nation of the world. We believe in free trade, and that is the direction in which we want to take ourselves, and, I hope, many others. For us, the rest of the debate, once we get through that and understand its relevance, is about process.
I listened very carefully to the hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras as he spoke for the Opposition, and I understand deeply the problem the Opposition have right now. The Conservatives were in opposition for a number of years and we were often divided. I was a Leader of the Opposition and I remember it very well. Leading the Opposition is like herding cats and there are a lot of cats sitting on the Benches behind him. They are divided about what they want. They are exposed in a simple position of not really wanting to leave, but recognising that 70% of them now sit in constituencies that voted overwhelmingly to leave. They are focusing on the fact that they run the risk, politically, of being in danger when the next election in called.
I understand fully Labour Members’ need to somehow try to confuse the issue with this particular agreement in relation to the amendment. However, the Government amendment is very clear. It sets a date by which article 50 has to be invoked. By not voting against the amendment, the Labour party will be giving the Government a blank cheque to go forward and invoke article 50 without any real caveats. I am wholly in favour of that, I have to say, because I support the Government, but I did not think Labour Members were supporting the Government. I welcome them to that position, although some of my hon. Friends absolutely deplore them for doing so. I see  from the shaking of heads that many on their own Benches deplore the weakness they seem to have shown, but I congratulate them—

John Bercow: Order. I was momentarily distracted by another hon. Member speaking to me. The right hon. Gentleman was a beneficiary for a few seconds, but I am afraid his time has now elapsed.

Hilary Benn: I want to begin by expressing my concern about the continuing tone of some of the debate on the UK’s exit from the European Union. I also want to express the hope, which may be vain, that today will mark the end of the phony war.
The decision has been made. We all campaigned on one side or the other and we accept the result. Parliament will vote in favour of triggering article 50. The deal—this is the importance of the motion tabled by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer)—is that in return the Government will come forward with, and get on with producing, a plan. It is entirely reasonable that the House and the British public should expect the Government to publish a plan well in advance of that vote. I welcome the fact that belatedly—nearly six months on—the Government have finally done so today.
So please, can we have an end to talk about “democracy deniers” and “remoaners”? One headline yesterday read
“Forty pro-EU Conservative MPs defy the will of the people to ‘side with Labour’”
and the Prime Minister’s official spokesperson said
“While others have seemingly made clear they want to frustrate the will of the British people, the Government is pressing on with it.”
May we have an end to that? It does a profound disservice to the scale of the task our country faces, to the seriousness of that task and the importance of the outcome to every single person who lives in the United Kingdom. I say to the Secretary of State that the Government and the Prime Minister should be trying to unite our country as they go about their task—we all agree that we should try to achieve the best possible deal—and to recognise their responsibilities to the 48% as well as the 52%. Maybe today will mark the day when they begin to do that.
Of course there are different views about the future of our relationship with the EU. Leaving the EU is not in doubt, but the nature of that new relationship—here I disagree with the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr Duncan Smith)—is up for debate.

Edward Leigh: We accept that Labour is going to vote for article 50 and we all want the plan, but does the right hon. Gentleman believe that Labour should not put forward an amendment on the article 50 vote that lays down a specific future, for instance, staying in the single market?

Hilary Benn: No, I do not. First, we have no idea what the legislation will look like. I would just make the point that, when I last checked, Norway is not a member of the European Union. Unless any hon. Members wish to contradict me, it is not a member. It is outside  the EU and it is a member of the single market. What that demonstrates is that there are choices to be made about our future relationship with the EU.
All any unreasonable delay in bringing forward the plan will do is create further uncertainty. The hon. Member for Bedford (Richard Fuller) is no longer in his place, but he said that it might consist of hints. I merely remind the House that when Moses came down from the mountain bearing the tablets, they did not contain the 10 hints. He was pretty clear about what he was telling people to do. I remind the House that the Secretary of State has got up eight times to enlighten us not a great deal about the Government’s objectives, and I have never heard Parliament described as “elbow joggers” before, although I did like the analogy. We are not elbow joggers, but participants in the process and we intend to scrutinise the Government as they undertake it. Apart from anything else, it would have been quite unacceptable for the Government to have told the 27 member states what their objectives were before they told Parliament and the British people. It is therefore really important that we get the plan, and that the Government publish one with substance.
To be fair to the Government, in some areas, we know what the plan is. That has been set out very clearly for the car industry. We know what the Government want: no tariffs and no bureaucratic impediments. Those were the words of the Business Secretary. They do not want anything to happen that would make it more difficult to trade. I am sure the rest of the manufacturing sector says, in all the meetings the Secretary of State is having, “Okay, that’s great for cars, but what about us?” Is it unreasonable for the Government to then say what their objectives are for the rest of manufacturing industry? I think that is perfectly reasonable.
There is then the curious case of the customs union, which got even curiouser during the Secretary of State’s speech. The Prime Minister has now told us twice that it is not a binary choice. Now we understand it is a four- way choice. The Secretary of State said there are four different models. The right hon. Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry), who unfortunately is no longer in her place, asked a perfectly reasonable question: whether he could at least tell us what the four different options are, so that we can all join in the conversation on which of the four the Government might eventually decide to choose.
Presumably, we are going to seek maximum access to the single market. For financial services, and the jobs and the tax revenue that depend on it, it is really important that we are able to keep access to the single market. I am sure that causes the Chancellor to lie awake at night, worrying about it. How will those controls on free movement, which the Secretary of State reminded us of, work in practice? How will they affect lecturers at universities, doctors and nurses, people picking and processing vegetables, chefs, care workers, highly skilled engineers, technicians and IT specialists? Will companies—this is a question we have heard a lot in the Select Committee—continue to be able to move their staff within their companies to another base elsewhere in Europe to repair a product, solve a problem or create a new business opportunity? When will we be able to offer clarity to EU citizens about their position here? We now know from the Home Secretary that they will all have to be documented. It is a fair question: how many civil servants will that take, how much will it cost and when will it be completed?
What about our universities? Young people from the rest of Europe will be asking themselves whether they are still going to apply to come to Britain, and when will they stop being treated as a home student and become an overseas student? They need to know and the universities need to be able to plan. Will we continue to participate in the Erasmus programme that allows young people in Britain from low-income backgrounds to study elsewhere in Europe? Will we continue to be a part of Horizon 2020?
What about the whole range of agencies? I will pick one: the European Medicines Agency. Now, one could say that wanting to remain a member of the EMA is cherry-picking. However, working with our European neighbours to agree on how quickly and safely we can bring new medicines to market is good for patients in Britain as well as patients in Europe. I plead with the Government to be just a bit more enthusiastic—I do not say this so much about the Secretary of State—and clear that they are determined to find a way of continuing to co-operate on foreign policy, defence, security and the fight against terrorism, because that is so important to all of us?
Finally, on transitional arrangements, the cliff edge and the negotiating plan, previous Governments, in respect of a whole host of treaties, including the Lisbon treaty, the constitutional treaty, the Nice treaty, and the Amsterdam treaty, and even when we sought to join the common market in 1967, all set out what they were trying to achieve. George Brown talked about the need for considerable adaptations and an adequate period. If it was sensible to admit the need for transitional arrangements when joining the common market, which was a much simpler organisation, is it not sensible for the Government to admit now that, if they cannot negotiate everything within 18 months—listen to what Michel Barnier said yesterday—they will be prepared, if necessary—

Emma Reynolds: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Hilary Benn: Will I get more injury time, Mr Speaker?

John Bercow: Indeed.

Hilary Benn: Then of course I give way.

Emma Reynolds: My right hon. Friend is very generous. Does he agree that businesses have expressed concern about the uncertainty created by the cliff edge in March 2019, about how we might fall back on WTO rules and tariffs and about how bad that would be not only for businesses but for jobs, our constituents and the broader economy?

Hilary Benn: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We have heard a lot of evidence before the Select Committee, of which she is a valued member, saying precisely that. As she said, we have heard much about bureaucracy, rules of origin, delays and so on. Whole businesses have been created on the basis of goods moving back and forth four, five, six times before finally being added to the product being sold. People need to understand that the way business works in the Europe of which we have  been a part creates and sustains jobs. To say, “We will walk away. It doesn’t matter. We can cope”, really misses the point about why business is worried about the implications.
The last point I want to make to the Secretary of State concerns the question of a vote on the final deal. I heard him say today, “I expect there will be a vote”. Well, I expect that the District line will turn up within five minutes, but today there were longer delays. He said, as I understood it, that it was inconceivable that there would not be a vote. Well, some people would have said it was inconceivable that Donald Trump would be elected President of the United States. It does not fill me with a great deal of confidence. I gently say to him that the simple response to the question, “Will there be a vote when the deal comes before us after the negotiation?”, is to stand up, look the House direct in the eye, and say, “Yes, there will be a vote.”

Kenneth Clarke: It gives me pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn). It shows the odd situation we are in that I can say I agreed with every word he uttered. It might be a long time before either of us finds ourselves in that situation on any other subject, but then this is unlike any decision that has come to the House for many years.
We all know that when we leave the EU and begin the several-years process of deciding our future political and economic relationships with Europe and the rest of the world, we will be embarking on some of the most complicated and epoch-making decisions that the House will have faced for a century. Although those debates will come later—and I will not argue today my well-known views on the merits of EU membership—I think that the decisions we are taking today on the parliamentary procedure that should apply to a Government engaged in policy making and acting on behalf of the UK, including future citizens, not just present citizens, are equally important. If we carelessly agree to things today, we might create precedents that will be quoted in future to the detriment of both Houses of Parliament and of the system of checks, balances and accountability that is crucial to our constitution. Of course, today, I speak politically not legally—we all await the outcome of the serious issues before the Supreme Court.
I do not understand why the Government indicated that today’s Opposition day motion posed some sort of threat. With great respect to the Leader of the Opposition—he is working very subtly, and I have high regard for how he conducts himself—it is a harmless motion, a plain and simple motion, setting out what one would expect to happen in any similar circumstances and what one would certainly expect to have happened at any time in the past 100 to 150 years—certainly in every Parliament I have sat in.

Jeremy Quin: Surely you haven’t been here 150 years!

Kenneth Clarke: No—only the last few decades can I recall directly. In any previous Parliament—certainly the ones I sat in—the process to be followed would have been regarded as self-evident: the Government would produce  a policy statement, a White Paper, setting out their strategic objectives, their vision, for the role they were seeking for the United Kingdom; the House of Commons would be invited to vote on that strategy and to approve or deny it; then, with the approval of the House, the Government would go forward, again with the consent of the House, and invoke article 50; then they would start the negotiations. It is a quite unnecessary performance to try to modify that, but I am extremely worried that people are trying to do so.
I would echo the comments of the SNP spokesman, the hon. Member for North East Fife (Stephen Gethins). I do not think that scrutiny and debate are a threat to a Government or to the quality of decision making. It is my opinion that we should return to proper Cabinet government in this country. If a Minister comes forward with controversial proposals, it is useful to have them tested by colleagues and improved in discussion, before they are sent to the House. Every Minister has taken part in debates in the House of Commons, and of course they maintain their course, but every now and then they will have a sinking feeling that their opponent is actually making rather a strong point. In such cases, one goes away and makes improvements. In strengthening their negotiating position, the Government could benefit from such a fit and proper process, particularly given that at the moment it is sadly clear from the constant remarks to the newspapers and the occasional leaks that Ministers have no idea what the strategy is and do not agree with each other anyway.
The Government have two or three arguments against this. The point about the royal prerogative is a matter for the Supreme Court. The excellent Treasury Devil, James Eadie, for whom I have the highest respect, has apparently argued that the royal prerogative still applies to making war as well as to making treaties. I will wait for the legal judgment but, politically, had Tony Blair decided when invading Iraq to tell the House of Commons that it was not a matter for the House of Commons and that he was invoking the royal prerogative rather than seeking a vote, he would have had even more trouble than he had in any case as a result of the strange way he went about the vote.
We are told that the referendum somehow overrides the centuries-old tradition of parliamentary accountability. I will not comment on the pathetically low level of debate, as reported in the national media, on both sides during the referendum campaign. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Brexit no more adopted some of the dafter and dishonest arguments on his side than I think I did on mine, but serious arguments were not reported. More to the point, the public voted by a majority to leave the EU. They did not vote for anything on the subject of replacements for the EU; it was not even raised in debate. These choices that Ministers are now struggling with, and for which they should be accountable to us, would have been a mystery to 99% of the people who listened to the debate and voted in  the referendum. The issue of whether we should be in the customs union, and the consequences one way  or the other, was not decided by the referendum. Brexiteers in the Government do not even agree with each other on the path they should now follow. We should go back to parliamentary democracy and accountability to  this House.

Bernard Jenkin: I am glad that my right hon. and learned Friend now agrees that this Parliament should be supreme. In fact, Mr Blair did take the country to war on the royal prerogative, because the vote in this House was not law, but purely advisory. Is it not rather odd that we now have a Supreme Court that sees itself as a constitutional court able to direct that this House shall have to do something, which has always previously been our right? We are a supreme Parliament; we can stop Brexit if we want to.

Kenneth Clarke: It is not going to direct us at all. The Supreme Court is the authority—I am not, and my hon. Friend is not—for saying what, strictly speaking, the legal constitutional position is. This House then has its own political role in deciding how, within that framework, it is going to operate. The political practice for decades has been that these kinds of decisions are not taken on the basis of telling Parliament that it has nothing to do with it and that Members will not have a vote. On the basis of that argument, the Cameron Government would have proceeded with their intervention in Syria, which we decided that we did not want; they would not even have offered the Commons a vote before they proceeded. In this particular instance, no Government that I can recall would have had the nerve to come along to Parliament and say, “Oh, we are exercising the royal prerogative; we are not going to ask you.”
Finally, let me deal with the nature of accountability. I am not sure that the Government have yet wholly picked up the point, apart from the fact that they have to get out of being defeated on a motion in a Labour Supply day. We are told, “Oh, the Government will make statements.” Well, the Government have been making statements, in which the rather vague language of “a plan” is used. We will probably be told that the plan is to have a red, white and blue Brexit, and that we are believers in free trade, whilst we are giving up all the conditions that govern free trade in the single market. Apparently, not only are we going to give up the European Court of Justice, which we have always used very successfully to resolve disputes, but we are going to have trade agreements with everybody else and not abide by the rules of those either, if we feel like it. We need a White Paper, a strategy, votes in this House and clarity on policy.

Ed Miliband: It is a privilege to follow the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke).
This debate might appear just to be about this House, and the rights of this House and whether we get a plan. It is not. And it is not about whether you were for leave or for remain. It is about a deeply divided country. The truth is that we are divided between people who voted leave and fear being betrayed, and people who voted remain and fear a deep sense of loss.
In case we have forgotten, after all this is over—I suspect it will take more than two years—leavers and remainers will have to live in the same country. That is why I believe that the way we conduct this debate, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) said, is absolutely crucial and all of us, however we voted in the referendum, should be seeking to unite the country and not divide it. What does that demand?
First, I believe we need to honour the result of the referendum. It was a referendum that, as the House knows, I did not seek, and it was close, but it was clear and it needs to be respected, in my view. We are leaving the European Union; I could not put it any plainer than that. That is my starting point. But unifying the country takes a lot more than simply saying “Brexit means Brexit” or even “red, white and blue Brexit”.
There are hugely significant and material choices to be made by the Government and our EU partners, which will have implications for our country for decades to come. That is why it is good that the Government have said that they are going to publish a plan. I looked up the “Chambers Dictionary” definition of a plan, and it is this:
“a thought-out arrangement or method for doing something”.
That seems to me to be more than a series of hints, to use the words of the hon. Member for Bedford (Richard Fuller). What the Government have committed to—there should be no doubt about this—is the thought-out arrangement that they favour for Brexit, and they have committed to produce that to the House before the negotiations begin.
We know the key questions that need to be answered. Do we remain in the single market or not? Do we remain in the customs union—that has been debated today—or not? If Brexit is outside the customs union, as seems to be the Government’s position—maybe, although there are four different options and we do not know what they are—what is the best estimate of the economic impact of that on our country and every one of our constituencies and constituents? The reason this matters is that these are not nick-picking or procedural questions; they are questions that will affect millions of people and businesses up and down the country. There are not simply matters of procedure.

Stephen Doughty: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that this is not nit-picking. A key issue in my constituency is the funding for the South Wales Metro, which was due to come from European funding. The First Minister is going to Europe to see what he can get for the next two years, but this is a huge area of uncertainty, and it will affect hundreds of thousands of people in south Wales.

Ed Miliband: My hon. Friend puts it very well.
What about the plan on immigration, including for citizens of this country who want to go and work or live abroad in the future? What is the vision? I think the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, who is no longer in his place, was nodding and saying that they would produce a plan on our approach to crime and terrorism, foreign policy, climate and energy policy, in respect of which Governments of both parties have taken a leadership role in Europe. What is the future for that? We do not know at the moment, so it must be in the plan.
Our motion is not a request for every dot and comma of the negotiations, to use the Prime Minister’s words, to be included. We are talking about basic and fundamental questions about the Government’s vision of our economy and place in the world, post-Brexit.
As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) said, the plan must be produced in January—soon enough for Parliament and, crucially, the British people to debate it properly. I had some time on my hands, so I looked up the consultations on which the Government have embarked since the 2015 general election. There were 1,200 in all, and they include everything from consultation on the code for small sea-going passenger ships to one on the regulation of traffic signs. The Government consult a lot. Are we seriously saying that the issue on which they are not going to consult the British people is the post-Brexit arrangements for our country? I would point out that this is less of a niche issue than the regulation of traffic signs—important though that issue is.
Here is the thing. The Government said that they want to bring the country with them. That is really important, and those words were echoed by the leader of the Scottish Conservative party, who said that we have got to listen to the voices of the 48%. But a Government cannot take the country with them if they do not tell the country where they are seeking to go before the negotiations begin.
I have no greater authority to cite on this than the current Prime Minister. In 2007, she wrote a very interesting pamphlet with somebody called Nicholas Timothy, who I believe is her chief of staff. It is called “Restoring Parliamentary Authority: EU Laws and British Scrutiny.” I am told that it has been taken off the relevant website, but fortunately the House of Commons Library has a copy. It says:
“Our feeble system of scrutiny undermines Parliament’s ability to check or restrain the Government’s action in Europe…We therefore need a system that gives Parliament real powers over ministers, enough time to scrutinise, and the transparency to restore public trust in the process.”
I could not have put it better myself.

Oliver Letwin: rose—

Ed Miliband: I give way to the right hon. Gentleman, who might well have had a hand in the pamphlet or written many like it.

Oliver Letwin: I am grateful. To clarify, for the benefit of the House, is the right hon. Gentleman arguing whether, after the scrutiny, Parliament or Government get to decide on how to proceed with the negotiations?

Ed Miliband: I believe, as the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe said, that of course there should be a parliamentary vote—a mandate for the Government. That takes me precisely to further crucial points. The Government think that they will be weaker if they bring a plan to the House and get our support. I think the Government will be stronger in the negotiations, because they will be able to go to our partners in Europe and say that the plan is not just the Government’s, but one endorsed by the British Parliament.
The Government’s excuse relates to secrecy, and I think this needs to be dealt with. I do not think this argument stands up even to the most basic scrutiny. Let us think about how things will unfold. Once the formal negotiations begin, the EU negotiator will obviously have to confer with the 27 other Governments. Our Government’s intention and detailed proposals will remain secret for a few days if they are really lucky, but probably  not even for a few days. The Government’s position will inevitably leak. The question before us is not whether the Government’s intentions are kept secret—which is apparently what the Prime Minister wants—but whether those in this Parliament and this country are the last people to know what the Government’s intentions actually are. It seems to me that there is absolutely no chance of the Government’s uniting the country, and taking the country with them, if they adopt that approach.
There is also the question whether the referendum decides the form that Brexit will take. I do not believe that it does, as many other Members have said, but it is not just me who takes that view. Daniel Hannan, one of the leading Leave campaigners, has said:
“Some Leavers claim the result as a mandate for whatever arrangement they happened to want.”
That is the truth about this, and there is no getting away from it. There are many different forms of Brexit, as we see in the numerous other countries that are outside the European Union.
I want to end where I began, with a point about the spirit of the debate. My right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central quoted some comments that had been made by Downing Street spokespersons on Monday, but they said something else which I find incredibly troubling. They said that those of us who are asking for transparency were not “backing the UK team”. In other words, we are not being patriotic. By my reckoning, that puts Sir John Major, Ruth Davidson and a number of Conservative Members of Parliament in the unpatriotic category. I am used to being called unpatriotic, and my dad has been called unpatriotic as well, but it really is something when Conservative Members are called unpatriotic. We know that things have become desperate for the Government when that starts happening.
We are not seeking proper scrutiny of the plans for Brexit because of our lack of patriotism; we are doing it out of patriotism, because we believe in the unity of the country. We believe that the country must be brought together. We believe that the cohesion of the country must be protected. This is the most complex and treacherous situation that our country has faced for a generation. Candour and transparency are not qualities that the Government should fear, but qualities that they should embrace, because they are the only route to uniting our nation, and we all have a responsibility to seek to unify the country.
I urge the Government not to choose a path of division, excluding the 48%, refusing to share their intentions and vilifying their opponents, including those on their own side. That is not behaviour equal to the moment: it is not behaviour that our country and the world need. We all have a responsibility to rise to the moment, and that is what we must do in the months and years ahead.

Bill Cash: Listening to the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband)—

John Bercow: Order. I think the hon. Gentleman has been notified of this, but I should notify the House that, although the clock can be stopped at this point, the time limit for Back-Bench speeches is being reduced to five minutes, with immediate effect.

Bill Cash: Thank you, Mr Speaker.
I was about to refer to the final remarks made by the right hon. Member for Doncaster North. I think it was Samuel Johnson who said that calling on patriotism was the refuge of the scoundrel. I listened with great care to what the right hon. Gentleman said, as I always do, but I have to say that he dodged a number of issues, not least when he described the dictionary definition of a plan as something that was thought out or a method of doing something. He said that that was not the case for the Government, but in fact, of course, it is.
It is very simple—as simple as this: there was a vote which was authorised by a sovereign Act of this Parliament. That Act transferred the right to make a decision to the British people, and they made it. The right hon. Gentleman acknowledges that, and he says that he wants to respect it, but the reality is that the decision was about whether to stay in the European Union or to leave it, and the bottom line is that the people of this country decided, by a substantial majority, to leave. The right hon. Gentleman, he tells us, accepts that, but then he sets up a fog, as does the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn), and as does my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke). We are given a whole lot of amorphous details that are intended to make the situation far more complicated than it is.

Kenneth Clarke: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way, not for the first time during these debates. He and I took part in a referendum in the 1970s, when he was no doubt saddened to find himself on the losing side. I seem to remember that he strongly took the constitutional view that the result was purely advisory, and it did not change either his views or his political campaigning one iota afterwards—just as Nigel Farage and many of his supporters made it perfectly clear when they were expecting to lose this referendum that they were waiting for the next chance, and they were going to go on. We must have respect for each other’s opinions, rather than telling each other that we have been ordered by an opinion poll to start abandoning them.

Bill Cash: I hate—this pains me—to disappoint my right hon. and learned Friend, but I voted yes in the 1975 referendum—[Interruption.] I accept my right hon. and learned Friend’s apology. It was only when I came to the House and the Whips made what I think was probably a terrible mistake of making me a member of the then Select Committee on European Legislation that I began to see the truth. I discovered that, actually, we were not able to run our own affairs as this whole process continued towards political union. That was what the Maastricht rebellion was all about. There is a very interesting article by Philip Johnston about it in today’s Daily Telegraph.
It is because of the political union with which we are still lumbered—because we have not, as yet, left the European Union—that this is so essential. Back in May I wrote a paper about the question of repeal, entitled “Achieving leaving by repealing”. The laws that we incorporated by virtue of the European Communities Act 1972, as they accumulated, created circumstances in which we were becoming increasingly suborned to an undemocratic system of majority voting, which was combined with the ever-increasing assertiveness of one  country in particular, and others in general, congregating around one another. That put us at an incredible disadvantage.
The European Scrutiny Committee, of which I am Chairman, conducted an inquiry into the manner in which the Council of Ministers operated, and reached the conclusion that it was not transparent. We took evidence from Simon Hix. The decisions that are made on behalf of the British people and imposed on us by virtue of section 2 of the European Communities Act are neither democratic nor accountable, and they are not transparent. That is why it is so essential that we repeal that legislation. While the Supreme Court is weaving in and out of political issues and trying to avoid article 9 of the Bill of Rights—I do not need to go into that now—the bottom line is that what we are facing is a political imperative towards a greater degree of political union.
I discovered that last week when I went to a conference in Brussels, where Mario Monte said, “Europe needs political integration or there will be war. It is as simple as that.” That is the manner in which this argument is being constructed across the water. Similarly, Chancellor Kohl said that there would be war in Europe if we did not agree to the Maastricht treaty and the whole European integration process. That was why my hon. Friends and I—there are not many of us left in the House now—opposed the treaty. We saw that it was European government. That was the key—for us, it was a question of democracy above all else.
I wanted to intervene on the speech made by the right hon. Member for Leeds Central, but unfortunately he would not give way. I rather suspect that I know why, but there we are. I wanted to ask a question that I will ask those on the Opposition Front Bench as well. Will they oppose the Second Reading of the great repeal Bill when it comes before the House? That will be a crucial test. Let us leave aside all that is going on relation to article 50, which is about one simple question: are we using the prerogative or not? In my opinion, that is largely a very big storm in a very big teacup. The bottom line is that we will agree to article 50. The real question is: are we going to leave the European Union?
Let me say this, very simply. We should not be supplicants in these negotiations. We should say no to the single market, no to the customs union, and no to the European Court, because we cannot be subject to that European Court in any circumstances. We should say yes to borders, yes to free trade, and yes to regaining the democracy for which this House has stood for hundreds of years.

Angus MacNeil: I come to this debate from two positions. First, I am a Scottish National party Member from Scotland, which voted to stay in the EU. We were told that this is a family of nations, and as such we would expect a member of that family to be respected—as, indeed, the EU respects its members. Secondly, I am the Chairman of the newly formed International Trade Committee, and it is to that that I shall direct most of my remarks.
The Prime Minister talks about Brexit meaning Brexit, but I have spoken to a number of economists about that. Indeed, I am indebted to a number of economists  of various shades and political persuasions: Angus Armstrong of the National Institute of Economic and Social Research; Patrick Minford; Professor Ian Mitchell; Professor Ian Wooten of Strathclyde; Dr James Scott of King’s; and Dr Jim Rollo of Sussex University, as well as legal experts from Cambridge, University College London and the London School of Economics. Brexit actually means about seven options. It means: do we stay in the European economic area? We can still see the video of Nigel Farage and Daniel Hannan saying before the referendum that leaving the EU meant we would be like Norway. The question was: should the UK remain a member of the EU or leave the EU? The seven options include the EEA, EFTA and the currency union. We could not get an answer today at PMQs or from the Secretary of State either.
Another option is to trade at WTO levels. That would mean that we need to have our schedules accepted at the WTO. I see that the Secretary of State for International Trade was in Geneva last week, probably discussing that. If we do not get the schedules agreed, we will be at WTO-minus. That is a possibility because of the difficulties over agriculture. Some 98% of the schedules might well be agreed, but those in the agricultural sector should be very scared. Of course, some people will have voted for Brexit on the basis that they do not want to trade so much as a stone axe ever again with Europe, but they are probably the editors of the Mail, The Sun and the Express.
We find ourselves in great uncertainty. Investors are uncertain. If we go to WTO rules, would will that mean for them? What will it mean for employers, too? We have absolutely no idea where the Government are going. There is great uncertainty for the Irish, too. This morning I met the Irish Foreign Minister, Charles Flanagan. He did not know what the ask from the UK Government is. This is our next-door neighbour, but they do not know where we want to go.

George Kerevan: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government could show good faith by agreeing to reveal their goals and negotiating strategy with the devolved Administrations under Privy Council rules, which would put aside the whole question that the Government cannot reveal their negotiating hand?

Angus MacNeil: My hon. Friend makes an excellent suggestion; perhaps the Government should explore that further.
We should think of our other neighbours, not just the Irish. What does this mean for the Isle of Man, for Jersey or for Guernsey—for people we have close links to? What, indeed, does it mean for Gibraltar and the Gibraltarians—people I respect greatly and have very close links to myself?
We find ourselves in a very difficult situation here in Parliament. The Government have created a problem of their own making because of the Prime Minister’s naivety in not taking this process forward by putting a simple measure before Parliament. That would have stopped us from needing to go to the courts in the first place. Now the devolved Administrations have woken up to the fact that they can be involved, and maybe—probably—the Supreme Court will rule that the process requires the consent of the Scottish Parliament, in which case Brexit is finished, Brexit is over and Brexit will be blocked.
We see also that Europe is dictating the pace. The Barnier declaration yesterday that the UK will have 18 months to negotiate after triggering article 50 shows that it is dictating the pace. Given the experience of their negotiators, Europe will probably be negotiating the terms, too. That is because I fear there are more experienced negotiators in the tiny Faroe Islands than in the United Kingdom, and the UK negotiators will probably be scalped very quickly.
We need to know where the UK plans to go. The question in June was: should the UK remain a member of the EU or leave the EU? Nobody voted to leave the European economic area. Nobody voted to leave EFTA. Nobody voted to leave the customs union. Arguments afterwards that that question gives a mandate for those subsequent steps are nonsense. There is no mandate to take these next steps. Leaving the European Union can mean being like Norway or like Iceland, as Daniel Hannan, Nigel Farage and a number of Conservative Members said before the referendum, before changing their tune quite markedly afterwards.
We need answers. We need to know what the destination is, because a lack of a strategy is not what people in the UK need for their jobs, investments, industries, employment, families and communities. No answers is not a black Brexit or a white Brexit—or a red, white and blue Brexit. No answers is a yellow Brexit—it is a cowardly Brexit. It is a Brexit that shows that this Government have absolutely no idea where they are going, and it is a Brexit to keep together our ragbag of Brexiteers who each want a different one of the seven options. When the Brexiteers see which of the options the Government choose, they are going to fight like cats in a sack.
That is the difficulty that the UK Government face. They cannot consult the devolved Administrations and they cannot consult their European friends because they cannot consult properly and meaningfully around the Cabinet table as each member of the Government supports something different. There is going to be mighty trouble in the UK Government when they do decide in March.

Michael Gove: It is a privilege to follow the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil) and a superb argument against secession from a Scottish nationalist. I thank the right hon. Members for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) and for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) because the challenge they put to the House is one to which we should all attempt to rise: how can we ensure not just that we respect the result that 52% of people voted for, but that we involve the 48% who voted remain for a variety of reasons? While I am grateful to them for their speeches, which I thought were for the most part very constructive, I was disappointed in the Front-Bench speech from the hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer). He spoke for nearly 40 minutes, longer than some Pinter plays and many Haydn symphonies, and he spoke on what he referred to as the “defining issue” facing the UK, but he did not reveal at any point what Labour’s position is on our future relationship with the EU. He did not reveal on behalf of the 48% for whom he professes to speak whether he wants to stay in the single market or the customs union. What we had was 40 minutes of pious vapouring—a hole in the air masquerading as an argument.
One of the reasons why it is so important that we hear from the 48% is that we know what the 52% voted for. Some in the course of this debate have tried to complicate and obfuscate, but it was made perfectly clear not just by the Vote Leave campaign, in which I was privileged to play a role, but by the then Prime Minister and Member for Witney; by my right hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr Osborne), the then Chancellor of the Exchequer; and by Lord Mandelson. It was made clear by every single one of the leading representatives of the remain campaign that voting to leave the EU meant leaving the single market. There should be no ambiguity about that point. The public were fully informed and they took their decision in full knowledge.
That is one of the reasons why I am glad our Prime Minister and Chancellor of the Exchequer—both, it must be said, among the 48% who voted remain—are very clear that the result must be respected, and that means ensuring that the votes of 17.4 million people and their determination to leave the single market alongside leaving the EU should be acknowledged.

George Kerevan: Is the right hon. Gentleman telling us that leaving the single market is the Government’s position?

Michael Gove: I am telling the hon. Gentleman that that was the position taken by the British public, including more than 1 million people in Scotland and including many more people in his constituency than voted for the Scottish National party.
Not only do we need to respect the result and what the 52% wanted, but we need to acknowledge some of the concerns put forward by those who articulated the case for remain. There were two powerful concerns that weighed with me. The first was the prospect of an immediate economic shock, should we leave. That was a view put forward by the Governor of the Bank of England and a number of other distinguished economists, but we can now see that, while their concerns were expressed sincerely, they did not come to fruition. The point was made at the time—[Interruption.] I am grateful for the sedentary intervention from the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie), but the point was made at the time that there would be an immediate shock not just to Britain but to the world economy. That shock did not materialise. In fact, since we voted—

Anna Soubry: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Michael Gove: Not quite yet.
Since we voted to leave, we have seen increased investment from Nissan, Jaguar Land Rover, Amazon and Facebook—from a variety of both traditional manufacturing and new technology investors. Far from there being an economic shock, we are the fastest growing economy in the G7.
It was also a legitimate concern of some who voted remain that voting to leave the EU would damage the United Kingdom. The truth is that since we voted to leave the EU, support for a second independence referendum has fallen, support for Scottish independence has fallen, support for the SNP and its secessionist sermonising has fallen, and the single most popular politician in Scotland is Ruth Davidson, the only leader of any party that wants to embrace the result.

Anna Soubry: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Michael Gove: No, I am not giving way.
So on two of the legitimate concerns expressed beforehand—that our economy would be damaged and the Union would be damaged—the evidence is that our economy is stronger and the Union is more popular.
Of course other concerns were expressed by people who voted to remain. Some of them relate to the fate of EU citizens in this country, some relate to future academic and scientific co-operation, and some, naturally, relate to defence and security co-operation. My point is that it is incumbent on everyone—not just the Government but the 48%—to put forward their propositions in this area.
I have made it clear, and I share this view with my right hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Nicky Morgan), that I believe that EU citizens in this country should stay and that their role should not be a bargaining chip. I am sure that many of those who voted remain will join me in that call, but where are those who voted to remain, now that power is flowing back to this place for the first time in my life, offering to explain how we can refine regulation and change our laws and rules as we become a self-governing country once more and become freer, more liberal, more prosperous and more creative? I am afraid that, despite some honourable exceptions, most of those people are still looking back in anger, remorse and regret instead of looking forward optimistically. This is a great country. We can achieve great things. This Parliament has an opportunity to shape—

Anna Soubry: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Michael Gove: No thank you.
This Parliament has an opportunity to shape an economic policy, an immigration policy and a knowledge policy that can once again make us a world beater, but if we do not take that opportunity and instead concentrate on seeking to dilute the result of the referendum, I am afraid that we will fail the people of this country at this historic moment.

Rosie Winterton: It is a great pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove). I was pleased that he called for unity, although I am not sure that he actually achieved it in the House during his speech.
This debate has shown why it is so important that Parliament should be able properly to consider the plan for leaving the European Union. There is no doubt in my mind that we will leave; my constituents voted decisively to do so. I absolutely agree with what my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) said about article 50. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) said, however, this is a time to bring the country together, and it is essential that we work together to get the best deal for our constituents when we leave. This is such an important step to take, and it is inconceivable that as Members of Parliament we should just sit back and let the Government get on with it without telling us, even  in broad terms, what discussions they are having. I am therefore pleased that the Government have accepted that they will share with Parliament the broad terms of the negotiations.
Companies in my constituency are suffering because of the uncertainty, and they want to know what analysis is being done of the effect that Brexit will have on them. I have said before that such an analysis should be carried out not only by sector but by region. Ministers have said that they will consult Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland about the Brexit negotiations, but what about Yorkshire and the Humber? What about the other regions of the UK? Will the Minister tell us what the process will be for consulting the regions, and how companies and others in my constituency will be able to contribute to that process?
Companies will also want to know what the approach to the single market is going to be. They will want to be assured that if the Government intend to give up our current level of access to the biggest marketplace in the world, they have a clear plan to ensure that businesses and jobs will not be adversely affected. Equally, if the Government intend to seek a transitional deal in order to make the transition smoother, they should be open and up front about it that so that companies and workers can plan accordingly. The Secretary of State said earlier that workers’ rights would be protected. I welcome that, but I hope the Minister will be able to assure me that he is fully consulting the trade unions on how employment rights will be protected in relation to the European Union.
When we talk about employee rights, part of our discussions about the UK workforce will involve discussing how freedom of movement will operate in a post-Brexit world. We know that this was an issue in the referendum; it certainly was in my constituency. We also know that we have to strike a balance between addressing people’s concerns about how freedom of movement has been operating and ensuring that we do not leave our health service, our food and agriculture sectors and many other industries unable to function because of labour shortages.
We also have to address how freedom of movement has led to the exploitation of workers from other parts of the European Union and the undercutting of UK workers’ wages and conditions. I know from my constituency that agencies have too often operated in an unacceptable way, recruiting from outside the UK while not even advertising in this country, with workers from other European countries coming here on short-term contracts and never knowing from week to week what work is going to be available. I know from discussions with colleagues from socialist and social democratic parties across Europe that other countries are aware of such developing problems, and we need to have an honest debate about this. Surely we should be talking about EU citizens moving to the UK in order to take up secure employment, and about employers being made to take responsibility for how workers are treated, so that UK employees are not left at a disadvantage, with all the resentment that follows on from that. These are just a few of the issues that Parliament should be discussing. I hope that the Minister will be able to give us some reassurances on the negotiations, and that he will address the points that are being made today.

Peter Lilley: I want to make two main points. The first is that the Government’s position is much clearer than many Opposition Members are willing to believe and that it narrows the range of outcomes very considerably. The second is that what matters as much as, if not more than, the Government’s position is the position of our partners in Europe, yet no one on the Opposition Benches has mentioned that—there seems to be a sort of arrogance in suggesting that we can say, “We want this and we’ll get it.” Or perhaps it is subservience in saying, “We want this and we ‘ll any concession in order to obtain it.”
The Government’s position has ruled out three options. First, we will not be part of the internal market of the European Union. I use the term “internal market” because that is what it is called in European law. There is no such thing in European law as the single market. To be a member of the internal market, we would have to be a member state subject to all the laws of the European Union, and the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State today have said that we will not be subject to the European Court of Justice.
Secondly, we will not be members of the European economic area, because all members of the European economic area have to accept free movement, and the Government have ruled that out. On top of that, we cannot negotiate service deals because we do not have control over the laws governing all our service industries. This was described during the referendum campaign by the current Chancellor of the Exchequer as the worst of all possible worlds, and many others on that side of the argument supported him. Now, however, they suddenly want to be part of that worst of all possible worlds.
Thirdly, we cannot be subject to the common external tariff of the EU because we are champions of free trade, according to the Prime Minister. We set up a Department for International Trade that has to be able to negotiate tariffs. We also want to cut the tariffs on products that we do not produce—including food and clothing products on which the EU imposes very high tariffs—because those tariffs are damaging to the just-about-managing people in this country. So those three options are ruled out, which leaves two realistic options.

Iain Duncan Smith: May I give my right hon. Friend one good example of this? It relates to the import of oranges. Very recently, the customs union has slapped on a tariff increase from 3% to 16%, solely to protect some producers in Spain. That raises the cost of buying the products here in the United Kingdom, so food is now more expensive as a direct result of interventions in the customs union that Opposition Members want to be part of.

Peter Lilley: My right hon. Friend makes a good point, and I would add that we do not easily manufacture oranges at scale in this country.
There are two realistic options. The first is that we continue with roughly the status quo: tariff-free trade and no new barriers to service trade. The EU already has free trade agreements that do not require free movement with 50 countries. The second is that we trade with them on WTO terms and they might try to make trade in our service and financial services industries  a bit more difficult. The important thing is that both options are actually very simple to negotiate. Going from zero tariffs to zero tariffs is much easier than negotiating a trade agreement between Canada and  the European Union, where each side has 5,000 or  10,000 different tariff lines and must trade them off against each other. We also have exactly the same rules on products and so on as our partners in Europe. The status quo would therefore be simple to negotiate. The WTO option does not even require negotiation; it is what happens if the negotiations have no successful outcome. Both are simple and could be done quickly.
I also believe that both options are acceptable to the UK. In the view of most, retaining the status quo would obviously be the superior option if we could get it immediately, but if we go to trading on WTO terms, the average tariff would be about 4%—much less than that on average on manufactured products, but the 4% includes agricultural products. We have just experienced a 15% devaluation against the euro, so our exporters will, on balance, be much better off even with those tariffs, whereas exporters to us will have to face a 15% hurdle plus that 4% average tariff, so they will be much  worse off.
It is important that we emphasise to our negotiating partners that although we might prefer to continue with the status quo, if they do not want it, we are willing to walk away and trade on WTO terms. Quite a few Opposition Members have been trade unionists and are used to negotiating, but not many people in this House are. We cannot successfully negotiate unless we are prepared to walk away with no deal. Ultimately, however, it will be our partners in Europe—the EU 27—that will choose between whether we continue with roughly the status quo or whether we move to WTO terms and some obstacles.

George Kerevan: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Peter Lilley: I am sorry, but I will not.
Our EU partners will choose. If their primary concern is the economic wellbeing of their people, they will choose to continue with free trade. If their overriding primary concern is political and if they want to punish us and be seen to punish us, they will go with WTO terms. In practice, they will punish themselves far more, and we should make that clear. We cannot negotiate our way into making them choose one option over the other. We can perhaps try to persuade them, their industries and their electorates that they will be much better off if they continue to trade with us on roughly the current basis than if they move to WTO terms, under which they will be the principal losers. We are their single biggest market. A fifth of all German cars come here, much French wine comes here, and so on. Let us go to them and say, “It is a simple choice, make that choice—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. I call Pat McFadden.

Pat McFadden: The motion before us, moved by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir  Starmer), the shadow Secretary of State, calls for a plan before article 50 is invoked. Since 23 June, the resistance to such calls, for reasons of “no running commentary” or not giving away negotiating positions to what the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, the hon. Member for Reigate (Crispin Blunt), unwisely referred to as our enemy—

Crispin Blunt: The faux outrage that has followed the use of a metaphor is not worthy of the right hon. Gentleman, so I invite him to desist.

Pat McFadden: We are all responsible for what we say, and I do not believe that our European partners are our enemies.
Behind all that resistance lies one emotion. It is not the confidence of those who won the referendum campaign, but fear about the contradictory statements made during the campaign, about the exposure of divisions within Government, and about the enormity of some of the decisions that must be taken. On one level, I sympathise with Ministers, because the dawning realisation of what they are facing and what must be decided is in some ways something to which I can understand a response of fear. However, that does not serve well either democratic debate or our negotiating position.
To pick up on a point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband), an assumption has been made that, if we say what we want, that weakens us, but that is not necessarily the case. If we say what we want, that can strengthen our hand, which is precisely why the Secretary of State called for a White Paper in the article he wrote back in July. It is important for Ministers to understand that 23 June was not just a decision by the people on whether we stay in the European Union—although it was obviously that—but the passing of political responsibility for the consequences of that decision to those who led the leave campaign, many of whom now occupy senior Government positions. Despite the fear, there is no place to hide. There is a duty to both leave and remain voters to set out the principal negotiating objectives. There is also a responsibility to accept the consequences of post-referendum decisions.

James Cartlidge: Like the right hon. Gentleman, I campaigned to remain, and we do all have a responsibility now to try to get the best deal, but the most basic business lesson shows us not only the point about not playing our hand, but that we should not narrow our options. We want to keep our options as wide as possible, not narrow them, which is the thrust of what the Labour Front-Bench spokesman was getting at, which takes us down a narrow lane when we want to keep things as wide as possible to get the best deal.

Pat McFadden: I am afraid that I do not agree with the thrust of the hon. Gentleman’s intervention. Responsibility cannot be evaded. The Government have a duty to do more than define success as whatever it is they manage to agree at the end of the day. The public need more than that.
What is it reasonable for such a plan to cover? I do not have an exhaustive list. Other Members have referred to some of the key points, but I want to outline some  things that it is completely reasonable for such a plan to include. Will we stay in the single market? Some hon. Members have said that that question has been decided. I do not believe that it has. If the Government’s position is to withdraw from the single market, is it their aim to ensure equivalent access not only for goods, but for services? What is the position on the customs union? The Government have said that they will not accept free movement as it currently stands. Many of us want the way free movement has worked to be reformed, but what reforms do they want? They have rejected the points-based system, so what can we expect in future? Is it, for example, the same visa system that applies to non-EU immigration? It is perhaps worth reminding ourselves that that has resulted in higher levels of immigration from outside the EU in recent years than from within the EU.
If agreement is not reached within the two-year period after triggering article 50, are we happy to fall back on WTO rules, with all that that means, or is it Government policy to seek a transitional agreement to avoid that happening? That is a perfectly reasonable question for us to ask and for the public to ask. Will we be able to avoid customs and people controls on the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland? That is another reasonable question. What are the proposals, beyond the single market, for cross-border co-operation on issues such as terrorism, crime and environmental protection? If we do pay in for future access to trade, as the Secretary of State said he was open to doing last week, how will the Government guarantee the spending promises made to universities and to farmers, the promises on regional spending and of course the £350 million a week extra promised during the campaign to the NHS? Will workers’ rights, many of them underpinned by European directives, be guaranteed in the future—and in what way?
As I have said, that is not an exhaustive list and there will be other questions, but I ask them in order to illustrate that a plan has to be more than a statement and more than a press release; it has to be comprehensive and to have substance. Fear cannot be an excuse for steamrollering through anything the Government choose to define as “success”. Fear is no excuse for accusing anyone who asks questions of trying to deny the referendum result or, even worse, of not being behind team UK or of being unpatriotic in some way. The truth is that asking questions like this is in the interests of the country and of voters, both those who voted leave and those who voted remain. It is our political duty, as representatives of our constituents, to ask these questions and to insist on a proper plan for the country’s future.

Oliver Letwin: The right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden) has made out that the essence of today’s debate is about whether the Government publish a plan and how it is scrutinised, and the shadow Secretary of State echoed that thought. I do not believe that is the debate we are having today; as was made clear in the response to me from the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband), the former Leader of the Opposition, the debate we are actually having is congruent with the discussion going on in the Supreme Court, over the road. It is about a great constitutional issue: the old Leninist question of “who, whom?” The question  is: should the Government of the UK, following a referendum, be able to conduct negotiations in the style and manner, and with the intent, that they decide, on behalf of the people of the UK, or should Parliament seek to constrain the negotiation, ultimately by passing a law constraining the activities of the Government in that negotiation? That is the issue we are facing.
I wish briefly to argue, in the time allotted, that if we think about it carefully, it is clear that it is impossible to conduct that negotiation successfully on the basis of a legal mandate given by Parliament. Why? It is because once a law is passed that determines negotiation, the negotiation as a whole, and in every particular and at every moment, is justiciable. We will end up with the Supreme Court and lower courts being called upon to decide, from moment to moment, in judicial review after judicial review, whether the Government have sufficiently transparently made clear every detail of the negotiation to satisfy the Court that the mandate of Parliament in the law is being observed; and whether they have fulfilled the terms of the mandate, once everything is transparent. Any Member of this House who believes this country will have an advantage in the outcome from such a process is severely misguided.
I voted to remain, and I still believe that would have been the right decision for this country. I believe we would be better off inside the customs union than out, and better off inside the single market than out; I wanted to be free of the rest of the EU’s jurisprudence, but not of those things. I think we might have achieved that, but that world has passed; the referendum has occurred—we are leaving. If we are leaving, we have to negotiate an exit. The horror and the tragedy of the discussion we are having now is that, if it does lead to Parliament imposing those kinds of constraints on the Government, it will not be possible for the Government to do a trade deal with the remainder of the EU when we have left—by that, I mean left the single market and left the customs union, as we are bound to do by the logic of the situation—and it will not be possible for the Government to negotiate a trade deal to the advantage of our country because it will not necessarily be within the mandate, and that could leave us in the worst of all possible positions. So I urge Opposition Members to remove the cloak, cease to pretend that this is about transparency and plans, as we know perfectly well where the Government are going, admit that this is a constitutional argument and give up the attempt to control the negotiations line by line from Parliament.

Helen Goodman: When the right hon. Gentleman looks at the way the other European countries conduct their negotiations within the EU at the moment, he will surely acknowledge that, for example, the Chancellor of Germany goes to her Parliament and receives a negotiating mandate, and then goes to Brussels. It is that kind of process that we on the Labour Benches are looking for.

Oliver Letwin: The hon. Lady is an old friend of mine, but she is totally misguided if she thinks that this is an analogous situation. This is the first time in history that a country has sought to remove itself from the EU. We are engaged in the most complicated game of multidimensional chess that any country has ever engaged in. To imagine that that can receive a legally binding negotiating mandate from Parliament, justiciable by the courts, is pure fantasy.

Mike Gapes: Why is it, then, that the European Parliament can be involved in this process, but this sovereign Parliament, because of the problems that the Government have created for themselves, cannot have any say? That is a democratic outrage.

Oliver Letwin: The reason is that the European Parliament is one of the counterparties to the negotiation. The counterparty in our case is the Government of the United Kingdom. We have had a referendum. The Government have to be able to carry through the effect of that referendum, and the plain choice we face is whether or not to constrain the Government. My argument is that, if we constrain the Government, we will end up with a worse result from the point of view of people such as me who were part of the 48%.

Ed Miliband: In November 1991, John Major came to the House to seek approval for his negotiating mandate—his plan, we might call it—for the Maastricht negotiations. I do not understand how the right hon. Gentleman can say that this is a terrible breach of our practices when John Major did precisely the same thing.

Oliver Letwin: He did. The outcome was catastrophic. I wrote 100 articles inveighing against the Maastricht treaty. Had we never signed up to the Maastricht treaty, we would not now be in this position. The right hon. Gentleman is not citing a precedent that augurs well for the negotiations that are to come.

David Davies: Is not it the case that, during those negotiations, John Major said,
“don’t bind my hands when I am negotiating”
with the European Union?

Oliver Letwin: He did. He did not succeed in having his hands not bound, and I repeat that the result was a catastrophe.

Iain Duncan Smith: The Maastricht treaty and internal negotiations on being in the EU are wholly different from leaving the EU. The strategy for those was about remaining in the EU—all the rest was detail for debate. Here we are debating something strategically quite different: we are departing from the European Union, including the European Court of Justice and various other elements. That means that too much detail on that will delay the whole process and make it impossible to reach the agreement that my right hon. Friend is talking about.

Oliver Letwin: I happen to agree with my right hon. Friend, but my point goes beyond that. It was never suggested, even during the Maastricht debates, that there should be a justiciable mandate. It has never been the case in the course of our island’s history that the prerogative power of making treaties was constrained by a justiciable mandate, still less in the case of a negotiation of this complexity, as my right hon. Friend has said.

Anna Soubry: I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend, as ever, for his careful and thoughtful remarks. He says that we are out of the customs union and that we will not be part of it, but people such as me and my constituents are asking whether that is right. Is not it right that we in this place should have a debate to determine whether that is the case?

Oliver Letwin: My answer is no. It is not right that we in this place should decide those things, because ultimately they can be decided only as part of the negotiation. As a matter of fact, I think that the Government will be compelled by the logic of the situation to take us out of the customs union, but whether or not they do that has to be left in the hands of Ministers to negotiate as part of the complex of negotiations.

Angela Smith: Let me be absolutely clear. We cannot say this often enough: this debate is not about whether we Brexit but how we Brexit. That is of prime importance. Decisions taken during the withdrawal process could have a huge impact on our economy and the prosperity of the people of this country. I do not accept the comments by the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin). The future of this country and its prosperity is of prime significance to the Members of this Chamber, and we have a right to discuss, debate and take a vote on it.
The people may have voted for Brexit—we cannot say this often enough, either—but they did not vote to be poorer. I echo the comments by my right hon. Friends the Members for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) and for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband). The time for digs against and negative comments about those of us who want the best possible deal for the UK is over. It is time to move on and to be responsible and mature in terms of what we are looking for.
It is the responsibility of Parliament to explore what Brexit means, both for our constituents and, importantly, for businesses located in our constituencies. I shall take for an example a key sector of our economy—food and farming, the biggest manufacturing sector in the UK economy, with a value of more than £108 billion, providing 3.9 million jobs. Seventy-five per cent. of our agricultural exports are to the European Union.

Margaret Ritchie: My hon. Friend and I are both members of the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Yesterday, I had a meeting with a Minister from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, and I fear that there is a problem in the Department with the conflation of two issues—free trade and access to the single market. Will my hon. Friend comment on that issue?

Angela Smith: I shall come on to the option that we should follow in the negotiations. As many Members have illustrated, we all have views on where we should be going. The National Farmers Union has modelled three scenarios for the outcome of the negotiations: a free trade agreement with the European Union; World Trade Organisation rules; and trade liberalisation.
The potential cost to farming of non-tariff barriers to access the EU and worldwide trade range from 5% as a result of regulatory divergence to 8%. If direct farm payments are reduced or taken away completely from farmers in those scenarios there will be a hugely negative impact on farm incomes, ranging from a reduction of £24,000 per annum under the best deal—the free trade deal—to an impact of over £30,000 per annum on  individual farm income under the trade liberalisation scenario. The EU spends £3.2 billion a year on support to farmers, which is just under 25% of what we pay the EU to be a member of the Union. A key question for the Commons is whether we continue direct farm payments to farmers at the existing 100% level. Do we reduce it, and do we look at the impact on farm trade and individual farmers? We need answers to those questions before we can sign off any Government position on what we do in Brussels in summer 2017.
The farming industry employs more than 80,000 seasonal workers a year. The NFU has called for a seasonal agricultural workers permit scheme. The Government refuse to commit to such a scheme, but without that input there is little hope for the horticultural sector. Furthermore, the food and drink manufacturing sector has a skills gap. By 2024, it will stand at 130,000. On top of that, one in 12 employers in the sector report an intention on the part of their employees to go back home.
The road haulage industry, which is a critical service for the food and farming sector, has a skills shortage of 45,000. Sixty thousand drivers in the UK are foreign, mostly from the EU. The veterinary sector is another vital service for the food and farming sector, and reports that over 50% of vets registered every year in the UK come from abroad, mostly the EU.

Helen Goodman: My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech about the importance of the farming sector. She will know that we have had representations from the National Trust and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, which have millions of members, all of whom are concerned about biodiversity, which is what farmers support in this country. Farmers cannot provide the environmental goods if their income makes farming uneconomic.

Angela Smith: Mr Speaker, I did not get the extra minute for the second intervention.

John Bercow: It is right that all of us should be held to account, including the Chair.

Angela Smith: Thank you, Mr Speaker.
I accept what my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman) said.
The labour shortages that will or could result from Brexit should be taken seriously by the Government. We need to know what resources and plans are required to take account of immigration policy and restrictions on freedom of movement and on the development of the domestic workforce. It is reasonable that this Chamber has an understanding of where the Government are going on this key issue before it accepts the Government’s negotiating position on Brexit. These concerns should be addressed when the Government publish their plan.
My own position is that we should retain membership of the single market, but I also believe that we need a proper timetable and sufficient time for Parliament to scrutinise the proposals and to amend them if necessary.
I will vote against the amendment, therefore, because there are no guarantees before us today. Nothing that I have heard today gives me confidence that the Government will not try to wriggle out of the commitment to put a  plan before this House. The vote today is not against Brexit, but against a motion that will potentially curtail the right of Parliament to act in the national interest, as it should do, and in so doing, act in the interests of our constituents.

Nicky Morgan: Thank you, Mr Speaker, for calling me in this debate.
Let me make it clear at the start, for the benefit of Members and of the Whip on the Bench, that I intend to support both the motion and amendment (a). I am very pleased that the Government have accepted the motion. This is the first time that they have accepted that Parliament should have a say on the triggering of article 50, and a role in scrutiny of the Government’s plans for Brexit.
We live in a representative democracy. It is right that Members in all parts of the House, many of whom have spoken today, act for both the 52% and the 48%, as has been said today. I want the ability to speak up for the students in my constituency, the university academics, the farmers, the businesses, the NHS workers and everybody else who lives there. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove) that the Government should give urgent clarity and confirmation to EU citizens living here that they may stay. We will have the moral upper hand at the start of negotiations if we have given that clarity.
Today’s debate has shown that we should have started the debate a number of months ago. Although I might disagree with what my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin) said, it is important that he has said it and we are able to debate those issues. I want a proper commitment to the plan, as we have seen, and a vote on the timetable. It is not good enough that these things are dragged out of the Government by Opposition day motions. I am pleased that it has happened, but I wish the Government were taking more of the initiative.
The Government plan can set out the high-level overall objectives. I might disagree with what my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr Lilley) said, but he said it more clearly than I have heard it said by anybody with his beliefs. Does the Minister agree with what my right hon. Friend said? The Secretary of State was right when he said in his opening speech that “it is also important that we do not close off options before we absolutely have to.”
As the Labour motion says,
“there should be no disclosure of material that could be reasonably judged to damage the UK in any negotiations to depart from the European Union after Article 50 has been triggered”.
The trouble with having “no running commentary” from the Government is that it has been replaced by running commentary based on notes seen in Downing Street, ambassadors’ private conversations with the Foreign Secretary, and Nissan executives’ conversations with those in Downing Street.
It is also important that we have a timetable. I have been very clear previously that I want the Government to get on with triggering article 50. I see that as the start of healing the rift between Parliament and people that we have seen result from 23 June. I do not have a problem with voting for the amendment, but I understand  and respect those Members who do. I do not think it is the same as having an Act of Parliament, as the High Court ruled, and I hope the Minister will be very clear that approving the amendment is not the same as having legislation.
We are going to have a wholly new relationship with the EU in or before March 2019. We are going to have a wholly new place in the world, and I want this country to be outward-looking and forward-facing. Brexit is going to affect our economy, our foreign trade, our foreign policies, our trade policies and our immigration policy. How the Government conduct the next two years will say much about our constitution and our values as a country.
Parliament has to rise to the occasion, and I have to say that neither Front-Bench speech today quite got there. Contributions from other Members of the House have got closer to showing an appreciation of the magnitude of what we are doing. If we are going to argue solely about the process, I think we will be letting our constituents down. It is the substance of the final deal we agree with the EU, and the final trade agreements we have with the rest of the world, that will shape Britain’s place in the world.
We need Ministers—from the Prime Minister downwards—to inspire as well as engage on these issues, and to be clear about what 2019 and beyond will look like for this country. I look forward to further such debates.

Douglas Carswell: The Opposition motion is absolutely right about one thing: leaving the EU is indeed the defining issue for this country. As such, I urge the Government to get on with it.
As for parliamentary scrutiny, of course Parliament ought to have the ability to hold the Executive to account, but believe me, as someone who enjoys endlessly banging on about Europe, there are endless opportunities to scrutinise the Government. I suspect that the sudden surge of interest in parliamentary scrutiny is in fact about seeking to frustrate the referendum result.
Those on the Labour Front Bench have been happy for the past 20 years to use Crown prerogative to hand powers to Brussels. All of a sudden, we see the issue of parliamentary oversight being used, in effect, as a brake—a brake against taking back control, and a brake against bringing our democracy home. Once again, those on the Labour Front Bench side with the supranational élites; they are out to try to frustrate and overturn the way people voted in June. Parliamentary sovereignty is shorthand for the sovereignty of the people. The verdict of the people on 23 June was absolutely clear. It would be perverse to invoke parliamentary oversight and sovereignty as a pretext for dither and delay.
I am absolutely delighted that the Government have tabled amendment (a) and it is an honour to add my name to it. The amendment calls the bluff of those who wanted to use sophistry to frustrate Brexit. Let us stop playing these parliamentary parlour games. Today’s vote is non-binding, and I hope Ministers will shortly bring binding votes before the Commons.
Finally, some politicians’ approach to Brexit these past few months has been to regard it almost as though the people somehow made a mistake on 23 June. They  seem to hold out the hope that we might have a second referendum and—who knows?—presumably assemble a new people. Perhaps, if these efforts to subvert the outcome of the referendum persist, we would find it easier to assemble a new Parliament.

Owen Paterson: The conundrum we are facing is that this is the first time in our history that the establishment and the Government of the day, having decided to have a referendum, have got a result that they disagree with. The Labour party’s 1975 referendum, and the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish referendums, all delivered a result that was satisfactory to the establishment and the majority in this House. Today, we face the opposite.
Two weeks ago, I was at the annual general meeting of my local National Farmers Union office, and a lady said to me, “What is it about London—what don’t they get? We voted to leave. Leave means leave.” As a founder member of Vote Leave, I think that we were pretty clear right throughout the campaign about what we wanted—we wanted to take back control. The Government have been pretty clear that they are going to deliver on that.
We wanted to take back control of our money. On my first day at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my Secretary of State’s briefing said that we were handing back £642 million of real money because the Commission, under the ECJ, disliked the manner in which the right hon. Member for Derby South (Margaret Beckett) had implemented the then CAP reform. So there was I, democratically elected and responsible to this democratic House, with nothing I could do about it. This House began from the principle of deciding what taxes were and who was responsible for them, controlling the monarch of the time, and it still has that fundamental role. The people will get back their role of kicking out politicians who raise taxes and spend them badly, because we do not have that at the moment.
We voted to take back control of our laws. I know about that in spades from my time at DEFRA. About 90% of DEFRA’s work is the implementation of European law. I tried manfully in negotiations to work with good allies, but we were outvoted on many occasions, and our farmers are struggling with the latest CAP reform. With many areas of activity competing strongly to be the worst, I would say that the EU’s governance of fishing wins, because it has been a catastrophe. Getting back our powers to control our fishing will restore our marine environments and fish stocks, and bring prosperity and wealth back to our most remote marine communities.

Angela Smith: I am listening to what the right hon. Gentleman says about the CAP, but does he believe that post-Brexit—in 2019 and 2020—the UK Government should continue to give support to farmers at the levels they are currently receiving? Does he believe that that money should still go to farmers or not?

Owen Paterson: Emphatically yes. If the hon. Lady had listened to my speeches during the referendum campaign, she would know that I said, “And, if appropriate, more.” What we will now be able to do is to embrace technology.  The EU is becoming the museum of world farming because it is so extraordinarily hostile to technology—and that also applies to fishing.
The hon. Lady has also mentioned immigration—quite rightly. The most angry people I met when I was at DEFRA were the fruit farmers in Essex, Kent and Hereford who had been deprived by the then Home Secretary, now our Prime Minister, who had stopped the seasonal agricultural workers scheme, which brought in 21,250 highly skilled Romanians and Bulgarians before their countries became full members. I worked hard with my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr Duncan Smith) and the then Home Secretary to see how we could work our way around this. The hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith) is absolutely right—we need a supply of skilled labour to work in our horticultural, fruit-picking and vegetable industry, and also in food processing.
At the other end of the scale, I know an eye surgeon whose family—they are Sufi Muslims—came from the United Provinces of India. She gave me, unprovoked—I have clean hands; she started it—the most extraordinary lecture attacking current immigration policy whereby she has to take less qualified, less skilled, less safe and less experienced eye surgeons because they have European passports, and she cannot choose more skilled and safer ones from Bangalore, Hong Kong or San Diego. I would like us to have the choice of the world’s workers—whether fruit packers or eye surgeons—on a permit scheme. I wholly endorse the comments of my right hon. Friends the Member for Loughborough (Nicky Morgan) and for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove) because it would send out a tremendous signal if we stated here and now that there are very large numbers of EU citizens working in our economy who make an enormous contribution. We should give them, up to a certain date, the right of abode, and from then on move to a permit system.
We said that we would take back control of our ability to trade around the world. SNP Members make a huge fuss about the single market and the customs union. We have to leave the single market if we want to come out from under the cosh of the European Court of Justice. The single market does not exist anyway. My noble Friend Lord Bamford recently gave a very good speech in another place saying that there are 10 standards for brake lights on tractors within the current so-called single market. It is a non-problem. People just punch in the information when they go on the production line.

Joanna Cherry: I am interested in what the right hon. Gentleman has just said. Can he tell me why the Conservative manifesto, on which his party fought the last election, stated:
“We say: yes to the Single Market”?

Owen Paterson: I am speaking for the Vote Leave campaign, which made it very clear that we would not be under the jurisdiction of the ECJ and that we would be able to make trade treaties around the world. Also—this was massively popular during the campaign—if we leave the customs union and get outside fortress Europe, the prices of everyday goods, food and clothing will come down. That will be of massive benefit to our consumers, and it is another example of why this is the establishment against the people.
The same thing is happening in Europe. We saw the results of the referendum in Italy this week, and there will soon be elections in Holland, France and Germany. Opposition Members should wake up to the phenomenon that we have allies in those countries who want what they would call an open Brexit. They want to trade with us, so we should be offering them zero for zero on tariffs.
Ilse Aigner is a senior member of the Christian Social Union in Bavaria with whom I worked extremely closely when she was the federal Agriculture Minister. Only last week, in her role as Economic Affairs Minister for Bavaria, she said to her federal counterpart, “Don’t mess up Brexit. We don’t want recession in Bavaria; we want to continue selling our products.” As well as the 17.4 million people here who voted for Brexit, we have significant interests in Europe on our side.
Quotes have been bandied about—including one that was, I think, a perversion of something that Helmuth von Moltke said—and I close with two. Napoleon, who knew a thing or two about winning battles, said:
“I never had a plan of operations”.
Carl von Clausewitz said:
“Pursue one great decisive aim with force and determination.”
Good luck to the Government; I will vote for the amendment tonight.

Ivan Lewis: We have to face up to the fact that a growing proportion of our population have lost faith in this place and in our collective ability to address their concerns and offer them hope for a better future. Brexit was a shock-and-awe wake-up call from too many who feel that mainstream politics is broken and does not work for them. Of course, some voted against the notion of pooled sovereignty and the fear of a federal superstate, but many others registered their protest at the state of their everyday lives: stagnant wages; the loss of traditional jobs and the consequential destruction of communities caused by globalisation; the impact of migration; and horrendous continuing inequality, which is something that UKIP has no answers to.
Although many of us believed that we had too much to lose by leaving the European Union, many of our fellow citizens felt they had nothing to lose. I am not the first Member of this House to make these points, but it is astonishing that in the aftermath of the Brexit vote and at a time of alarming levels of support for far-right parties across Europe and elsewhere, mainstream parties in this House appear to have learned nothing. Until the motion was tabled, the Government thought it acceptable to keep their Brexit plans secret from not only Members of the House but the people of this country. The Lib Dems suggest that the referendum result should be overturned via a second referendum. Some senior Labour Front Benchers demonstrate contempt for those who have legitimate concerns about the pace and impact of immigration.
If we are to begin a reconnection with those who have been left behind, it is vital that we demonstrate that we get it. We must have an honest dialogue with people about the unavoidable change that will continue to take place and the difficult choices that we face.

Douglas Carswell: Will the hon. Gentleman agree with UKIP’s long-standing policy by voting in favour of supporting the triggering of article 50 and leaving the European Union?

Ivan Lewis: I do not think I agree with a single policy that UKIP advocates. The party is about dividing our communities and causing mayhem in terms of community cohesion. It has nothing to say about the inequality in our society.
We must have an honest dialogue with the people. The language of hard and soft—and now, apparently, red, white and blue—Brexit is meaningless to many of our constituents. The Government’s shambolic and secretive approach to our negotiating position is cutting our constituents out of some of the most crucial decisions facing the future of our country.
Only this weekend, we saw the farce of the Prime Minister’s crackdown on Brexit leaks itself being leaked—an episode worthy of “The Thick of It” and “Yes Minister” combined. My concern that we are alienating large sections of the electorate and playing into the hands of the far right is not simply about the Conservative party. I despair when I hear Labour spokespeople responding to questions about immigration with meaningless platitudes such as, “We need to talk about immigration,” or when I listen to Front Benchers who dismiss or deny voters’ legitimate concerns. We need a credible policy agenda that does not compromise our internationalist and anti-racist values, but recognises that if people do not believe in open borders, they must show how they will control and manage immigration.
It is entirely consistent to have zero tolerance for the demonisation of immigrants while believing in the control and management of migration. It is also consistent to assert that integration is an expectation of citizenship, and to be crystal clear that it is this country’s duty and in our finest traditions to be a safe haven for refugees fleeing violence and repression. None of these things is incompatible with our values, and they are not contradictory.
Finally, we must tackle the grotesque inequality that scars our society. I commend the Governor of the Bank of England for his thoughtful and challenging speech recently about the need for real change. The fact is that the combined impact of globalisation and technology will continue to threaten jobs in our country, and income inequality and stalled social mobility are forming a lethal cocktail. Frankly, this Government are making those issues worse, not better. I remain convinced that it is in our national interest for the UK to be at the heart of the European Union, but the people have spoken and we have to respect their decision. Brexit is a wake-up call that has magnified the growing division in our society. We must not only tackle grotesque levels of inequality, but do politics differently in relation to how we engage with people about the big changes that will continue to affect their lives. The “we know best” era of Government has passed, and the stakes have never been higher for the future of our country and our politics.

Peter Bone: It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bury South (Mr Lewis). He made an important point about  reconnecting with the electorate. I entirely agree with him that for too many years Governments have thought that they knew best and have ignored the people. For instance, they have not been willing to engage on the issue of immigration. He is also absolutely right to say that we can want controlled immigration without demonising immigrants.
It is nice to see you back in the Chair again, Mr Speaker. The fact that you are giving so much attention to this debate clearly shows that it is an important one.
I will turn to an aspect of this debate that we have not touched on completely, because it has suddenly started to be about parliamentary sovereignty. As somebody who has always defended the right of Parliament and has been concerned about the power of the Executive, hon. Members would expect me to bang on about that and say that we should have a vote in this House on article 50. In fact, I have always thought we should do so. However, the reason why the Government are right to say that they can use the royal prerogative to trigger article 50 is the unique circumstances of the referendum. This House, in an Act of Parliament, gave the British people the right to decide that question. That is why I absolutely defend the right of the Government to proceed in the way they have thought fit to proceed.
Having said that, the role of Parliament is to deal with all the issues that will come up after we have triggered the process, reflecting the fact that we want to leave the European Union. To the Government’s great credit, they are putting on a series of debate on the European Union and Brexit in which hon. Members can make their views known. When the Government go to negotiate, they will therefore know the views of Parliament. It would be totally absurd, however, for the Government to lay down their negotiating hand in advance. It would just be daft. When I was in business, I did not tell the opposition what I wanted in advance of a negotiation. In the same way, the chief spokesman for the European Union has said this week that he will not lay down in advance what the European Union wants.
The most important part of this debate is that we will tonight, I hope, agree a motion telling the Government to trigger article 50 by 31 March. The Supreme Court is saying that that is not enough and there has to be an Act of Parliament.

Angus MacNeil: The High Court.

Peter Bone: Quite right—that is what the High Court has said. It is possible, of course, that the Supreme Court will agree with the High Court and we will have to have an Act of Parliament, although if the Supreme Court disagrees with the High Court the Government can continue the way they want to, through the royal prerogative.
That is why I have introduced my Withdrawal from the European Union (Article 50) Bill. It is two clauses long. All it does is tell the Government that by 31 March they have to trigger article 50. If that Bill goes through, we will be satisfying the High Court. That Bill will get its Second Reading on 16 December unless anyone objects to it. It will then go into Committee to be discussed and come back to the House on Report. By the time it comes back to the House for Third Reading, the Supreme Court will have given its decision.

Angus MacNeil: The hon. Gentleman is quite taken up with the triggering of article 50. It is not so much the triggering that is the major concern, but where the Government are going after that. Are they going for the Norway option that they talked about before the referendum, or for World Trade Organisation rules—what is the destination beyond the trigger point?

Peter Bone: The narrow point I am dealing with is the triggering of article 50, which I say has been authorised by the British people. The High Court disagrees. If the Supreme Court endorses that view, we will have to have an Act of Parliament. The hon. Gentleman is right that there are very many things to be negotiated and dealt with afterwards, and they have to come before this House. It has been quite a surprise to me that some Members who have suddenly found that they greatly support parliamentary sovereignty are ex-Ministers and ex-Whips who used to have no time for this place when they were in government. A sinner repenting is wonderful, but—

Anna Soubry: Name names!

Peter Bone: My right hon. Friend the Member for—I cannot remember what her constituency is—[Hon. Members: “Broxtowe!”] My right hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry). It is a juxtaposition for very many people. It is great that people now believe in this place. We should absolutely do what the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil) says, and scrutinise the Government as they go through the Brexit process.

Michael Gove: May I say, just for the record, that as Chief Whip I had a number of dealings with my right hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry) and she was always vigorously resistant to whipping and the imposition of parliamentary discipline? She remains on the Back Benches, as she was in the ministerial team, a feisty and independent voice whom we should all respect.

Peter Bone: I am always glad to be corrected by a former Chief Whip. What my right hon. Friend said is undoubtedly the case.
The important part here is very simple. Tonight we will, I hope, pass a motion that authorises the Government to invoke article 50. [Interruption.] That is what it says. [Interruption.] There is debate about that. Given that there is that debate, the only certainty is through having an Act of Parliament. I therefore look forward to my right hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe and others being here on 16 December to support my Bill—if anyone wants a copy, I have a few spares—because it would satisfy all the Court’s requirements.
The great thing about today is that it is Parliament that is dealing with the matter. It is not a Government motion on the Order Paper but an Opposition one. It is not a Government Bill going through but a private Member’s Bill. It is clearly Parliament speaking. I therefore hope that tonight the amendment and the motion are agreed and we can move forward, and then, in about 10 days’ time, we can give Second Reading to what this House wants: to trigger article 50.

George Howarth: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone). I simply make the point to him that the negotiations that the Government are involved in are a good deal more complicated than any business negotiation he may have been involved in in the past; simplifying things to that level does not really do justice to the scale of the problem.
I have two points to make. The first concerns the process of negotiation itself. The second is to do with the incoherence of the Government’s position.
Before I address those two points, I should say that although I campaigned to remain in the EU, I accept that the public have spoken and that their view has to be respected. My constituency voted in almost exactly the same way as the national referendum result—narrowly in favour of leaving. Close as it was, I frankly cannot see any democratic way of setting that result aside, and Parliament should respect it regardless of any court decision. If the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) was still in his place, I would say to him that that is not lip service; it is a serious statement, by almost every Member, about where we stand.
My first point is that it is important that the Government’s negotiations lead to the best possible outcome in terms of our jobs, economic prosperity, security co-operation and continuing engagement with Europe from outside the EU. I find it odd that the Government have so far been unable to give a clear account of the principles that will frame the negotiations. My right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) brought that point out very well.
I recently relinquished my membership of the Intelligence and Security Committee. I served on it for over 11 years, so I do understand that, in some circumstances, the state does have to have secrets—for example, on how our intelligence and security agencies work and their capabilities. However, the principles and objectives that govern our Brexit negotiations are the most urgent matter we have confronted in decades. They are an urgent matter of public policy that should be properly debated at every point along the way by this House. It surely follows that, on behalf of the people we represent, we should have an influence on those principles and objectives before anybody concludes the negotiations.
That brings me on to my second point. I am not at all clear whether the Government are committed to a so-called hard Brexit or a soft Brexit. Indeed, we now have two new additions to the terminology: a grey Brexit and a red, white and blue Brexit. I hope the new objective will be a least-damage Brexit. To simplify it, I accept that in terms of trade and the economic impact of leaving we need to get the best possible terms. In reality, soft Brexit means continuing access to the single market, or, at the very least, access to the customs union. However, how that can happen is becoming increasingly incoherent. Strangely, some Ministers—most notably the Secretary of State—are even talking about having to pay for access. I am sure that that would, understandably, cause outrage even among those who, like me, voted to remain.
What I am about to say may not please many, but it is politically naive to believe that continued access to the single market or the customs union, without corresponding concessions on the free movement of labour, could be  possible. I ask hon. Members to put themselves in the shoes of Angela Merkel or the next President of France as they go back to their countries and say, “Well, we’ve given the UK all the economic concessions and we’ve let them off the hook on the free movement of labour.” That just is not likely.
I accept that we have to have a route map for negotiations and I accept that this is not straightforward—I have already said as much. It cannot be the case, however, that, as a democratically elected Parliament, we can be expected to have no say whatever in the determination of the principles and objectives of those negotiations. I support the amendment to the Opposition motion, but only as a first instalment along that road.

Anna Soubry: It is a great pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Knowsley (Mr Howarth). I endorse in particular his opening remarks. Like him, I am getting somewhat tired of the constant abuse and constant criticism that somehow we are remoaners who want to thwart the will of the people, that we do not accept the result and want to go back on it. We absolutely do accept the result. I do not like the result—yes, I believe the people made a terrible mistake—but I said publicly, as did the right hon. Gentleman, that we would accept and honour the result. We said to people, “If you vote leave, you will get leave”. Would everyone please finally understand and accept that so that we can move on to the most important thing, which is how we get the very best deal for our country?
I gently say to the Secretary of State, who is no longer in his seat, that he should not be almost deriding me for working with people who sit over there on the Labour Benches, or further down the Benches opposite, or even with the Lib Dems—if any of them are going to take part, which I hope they might. [Interruption.] I am looking forward to their one contribution, from the right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake). The point is that the Secretary of State should not be criticising me for working with others on this most important of all matters—the most important for a generation and more I would say. When he sat on the Back Benches, of course, he was very happy and willing to work with right hon. and hon. Members opposite on the things that were important to him, and rightly so. This transcends party politics and tribalism.
Most importantly, now is the time for our country to come together. Make no mistake: families and friends are still divided. In my county, as I have said before, levels of hate crime remain 18% higher than this time last year. The way we begin to heal, build bridges and restore our communities, friendships and families is to include that 48% who voted to remain. To be honest, many of them—I include myself—have understandably felt sidelined and ignored and experienced the weight of abuse, be it online or in other places, and we are sick and tired of it. We are entitled to our opinion and we are entitled to express it.
We reach out and say, “We now want to work together with anybody—frankly—in order to get the best deal”. This is not just about my generation. As I enter my seventh decade—[Hon. Members: “No!”] Today’s the day. Moving swiftly on. I nearly said, “Everybody’s invited to the party”, but that’s another matter. In all  seriousness, it is not about my generation. The decisions we make now will resonate for decades to come and for generations now and in the future, so it is important we get it right, and it is important that we remember those youngsters. The majority of them voted to remain, and the honest truth is that many feel that an older generation has stolen their future. We have got to wake up and recognise that. I remind all hon. Members that the 16 and 17-year-olds of today will be their voters in 2020.
As ever, I am running out of time. I just want to say, in response to the excellent and wise words of my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin), that I struggle with the concept that we cannot debate these really important matters. With great respect to him, he says that we are leaving the customs union, but are we? Businesses and trade organisations in my constituency want certainty, they want to have a say and they want the right to shape what is best for business and our future.

Stephen Doughty: rose—

Anna Soubry: Ooh, I will give way. I will get an extra minute.

Stephen Doughty: It is true that the right hon. Lady has been willing to work across the House on crucial issues, as on the steel industry, on which matter I was pleased to work with her. She is making the right point about what is best for jobs, businesses, organisations, individuals and universities in our constituencies. That is what many of us are arguing for and what we want answers on, because those are the questions our constituents are asking.

Anna Soubry: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. Businesses and trade organisations in my constituency want certainty and transitional arrangements. Universities and others who employ migrant workers are saying, “What is your new immigration policy going to be, and how do we make sure we have the workers we need?” It is not politically correct to say this, but it is in the interests of British business and workers that we have migrant workers. It is they who make British business so good and who make us the fifth-strongest economy.

Claire Perry: rose—

Anna Soubry: I will not get another minute, but I will give way very quickly.

Claire Perry: I just wanted to say this to my right hon. Friend: would it not be the best possible birthday present for her if the House genuinely came together tonight, went through the Lobby in support of the Labour motion and our Government amendment, and showed the country that we can come together for something so important? We are not remoaners; we are bring-it-on Brexiteers.

Anna Soubry: I am grateful for that comment and all that my hon. Friend says.
I want to say this gently to the Government. I will vote for this, but I am nervous and concerned. On 12 October, this place agreed, without Division, that we would have a series of debates and we would scrutinise  the Government’s plans. Thus far, we have had two debates. The first was on workers’ rights. I know they are important, but frankly that is a red herring—no pun intended—because the Government have made it absolutely clear, and I take the Secretary of State and our Prime Minister absolutely at their word, that workers’ rights will remain entrenched in British law. Truly it is not a great issue.
The second debate was on that grave and weighty matter, “Transport and Brexit”. I am sorry, but this is not good enough. The debates we now need to have are about the value of the single market—let us thrash it out and hear why some say we should not be in it. Let us talk about the customs union and the peril of tariffs. Let us talk about immigration—the positive benefits of it, and some of the downsides, but let us have these debates and, most importantly, let us take part in that—Parliament. We speak for our constituents. We speak for the people.
Let no one use tonight’s motion and any vote when it comes to the proceedings in the Supreme Court. I want a White Paper. I want legislation. I want to go through the Lobby and make a difference on our relationship with the EU in order to secure a strong future for everybody for generations to come.

Ben Bradshaw: It gives me great pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry), who has been incredibly brave and, as a result of her courage, has faced hideous threats. I am sure that the whole House will want to wish her a happy birthday.
I shall try to focus my remarks on the motion and the Government amendment. I fully support Labour’s motion, but for the same reasons as my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith), I cannot support the Government amendment. In effect, it gives a blank cheque for us to invoke article 50 by March without any of us being any the wiser about the Government’s intentions today.
The Government promise to publish a plan, but it has been clear to me from Government statements and from statements of Conservative Members outside this Chamber in the last 24 hours that that plan will not be the White Paper that the Brexit Secretary once promised. It will not answer the big questions about our vital access to the single market, the rights of UK citizens abroad and EU citizens here, or issues such as tariffs. All the signals from the Prime Minister’s speech to her party conference and since have been that the majority of the Government want and are heading for a hard Brexit. In my view, that would be disastrous for jobs and prosperity in my constituency.
In the Labour party conference just a couple of months ago, we agreed as a party:
“Unless the final settlement proves to be acceptable, then the option of retaining EU membership should be retained. The final settlement should therefore be subject to approval, through Parliament and potentially through a general election or referendum.”
I accept that that does not specifically mention article 50, but it is surely explicit that, unless we start arguing now that article 50 is reversible, we should not support its invocation without having any confidence that the Government’s Brexit would be acceptable—and I have no such confidence.
I also happen to believe that the timescale that the Government have imposed on themselves is unnecessary, unrealistic and unwise. Michel Barnier, the EU’s chief negotiator, said yesterday that it would be completed in 18 months, but the French and German elections mean that no meaningful talks will happen until the autumn of next year. That means that, under the current plan, the talks will have to be completed within 12 months—the most complicated negotiations that this country has ever faced completed in just 12 months.

Geraint Davies: Given that the French and the German elections provide a case to delay article 50 and given that we can only negotiate before article 50—because, afterwards, we just give in our membership card and the Government decide—does my right hon. Friend agree with me that we should delay article 50 until November and then perhaps have a referendum on it?

Ben Bradshaw: I do not agree with everything that my hon. Friend has said, but I do think it would make sense for the Government to delay the invocation of article 50 until after the German elections, to give themselves more time to secure a good deal.
The Government have prayed in aid a motion that was agreed by the House, without a Division, on 12 October. The Secretary of State for Brexit prayed it in aid in his speech as well, without making clear that it had said nothing about a March deadline. It is worth my putting that motion on the record. It said:
“this House recognises that leaving the EU is the defining issue facing the UK; believes that there should be a full and transparent debate on the Government’s plan for leaving the EU; and calls on the Prime Minister to ensure that this House is able properly to scrutinise that plan for leaving the EU before Article 50 is invoked”.
There was nothing in the motion about a 31 March deadline. It was completely different from today’s Government amendment.
I know it is relatively easy for me, as one who represents a “Remain” seat, to oppose the Government in the Division Lobby tonight, but all of us, as Members of Parliament, are called upon to exercise our judgment on what we believe to be in the best interests of our constituents and the nation. I am afraid that I will not submit myself to a straitjacket of a timetable—an artificial timetable—to suit the Conservative party and deal with its internal problems when that would not be in the national interest, which is why I will oppose the Government amendment tonight.

Dominic Grieve: As the Member of Parliament for a constituency that voted narrowly to remain, I have felt ever since the summer that my task is to help my colleagues in the Government to achieve Brexit in a manner that is satisfactory and will lead to the best possible outcome for everyone in the country, and today that is still exactly what I want to do. The difficulty, as I see it, is that what we have heard over the last two months in particular—the vitriolic abuse, the polemical argument without any substance, and the ignorance of some of the basic ABC of our constitution—has reached a point at which I sit in the Chamber and listen to utterances that border on the completely paranoid. The nadir, for me, was to sit one evening and hear a Minister of the Crown—not one of those who are on  the Front Bench today—say that one of the Queen’s subjects who was seeking to assert her legal rights in the Queen’s courts, and who was, I might add, subjected to death threats as a result, was doing something, or had achieved something, that was unacceptable. If we continue like this, we are on the road to a very bad place.
In my opinion, while my duty as a Member of Parliament is to seek to uphold Brexit and help the Government to achieve it, that does not mean that I must suspend all judgment. On the contrary: we have a clear responsibility to scrutinise legislation, to ask awkward questions, to express our views and, if necessary, to intervene in the process if we think it is going off the rails to such an extent that it is no longer in the national interest. That is why I felt frustrated by the Government’s apparent refusal to come up with a coherent plan.
When article 50 is triggered, we shall be embarking on a process which, in reality, the Government themselves will have great difficulty in controlling. I certainly do not take the view that it is the duty of the House to micromanage the Government, and it has certainly never occurred to me that we should lay down prescriptive rules for what the Government should be trying to achieve, along the lines feared, I think, by my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin). I do not think that that is realistic. However, I do think we are entitled to know what the Government are intending to achieve, in broad terms, so that we can debate it and influence it. Some Members may then have to accept that they are in a small minority in respect of some of the legitimate issues that we can debate within the parameters of Brexit itself, and then help to sustain the Government as they go ahead with their work. The fact that the Government have that mandate, and have the approval of the House, will, in my view, help them immeasurably in their negotiations.

Oliver Letwin: My right hon. and learned Friend is making a powerful speech. Does he agree that if this House and the other place sought to amend the triggering legislation, that would have the effect of making the mandate justiciable?

Dominic Grieve: It depends on whether we were seeking to limit the mandate in carrying out amendments. As I have not seen what the Government are proposing by way of primary legislation, I have no idea to what extent it might or might not be amendable. But what I will say is that it certainly would not have crossed my mind that one of the sorts of amendments I should have would involve creating justiciable targets. I think my right hon. Friend knows me well enough from my time as a Law Officer to know that my views about declaratory legislation and targets are probably fairly unprintable—and certainly unutterable in this Chamber—and I do not recommend it to anybody.
On the question of where we are going after that and considering the issues around Brexit, I simply point out that some of the things said, even today by Members on the Government side of the House who I respect, seem to me to be rather fanciful. We have heard a lot about the sovereignty issue requiring us to withdraw from the European Court of Justice. I have to gently point out that if we are going to stay within the mechanisms of justice and security, which the Secretary of State said he believed was in the national interest, although our  withdrawal from the EU will mean we will no longer be subject to the direct effect of the ECJ, decisions of the ECJ on interpreting the treaty will continue potentially to have force on us in this country. That is not surprising because we are signed up to over 800 international treaties which have arbitral mechanisms for resolving disputes.
So unless we start getting out of this fantasy element about Europe as a pariah entity, we are not going to start getting down to a realistic assessment of what it is in our national interest to remain adherent to and what it is in our national interest to withdraw from, even though we will be outside the EU and therefore not subject, for example, to direct effect at all.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: My right hon. and learned Friend’s last point is exactly the point: if we have left the EU, judgments of the ECJ will have the same effect as judgments of the WTO arbitration court. They will not be automatically law of this land and will be subject to Parliament, which is a fundamental change.

Dominic Grieve: It is indeed a fundamental change, and I am delighted my hon. Friend is pleased and that appeals to him, but I have to say this from listening to some of the things said this afternoon: the logic of what my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr Duncan Smith) in particular was saying was that we would have to withdraw from all the 800 treaties that were subject to any arbitral mechanism because they undermined our sovereignty. This is the kind of issue in debate we have got to start to sort out, because the public out there expect us at least to have some degree of expertise about what we are actually trying to do, and to go and explain it against the background, as I said earlier, of vitriolic abuse against anybody who is prepared to raise their voice to put forward any argument that appears to be counter to the fantastical vision some have created out of our leaving the EU.
Another example is the situation with regard to the WTO. I may be wrong but I think joining, or rejoining, the WTO requires a negotiation with 163 countries, including an agreement with the EU.

Steven Baker: Will my right hon. and learned Friend give way?

Dominic Grieve: I will not give way as I must finish.
So that WTO negotiation will also be a matter of great complexity.
The one thing I am satisfied we are not doing tonight is validating the triggering of article 50 without more debate. First, it is quite likely that we will have to do it by way of primary legislation, but even if we do not, the Government would be wise to come back to this House and get the endorsement, as they would be entitled to do, once they have engaged in the type of debate that will enhance this House’s reputation and help us to do our jobs properly.

Heidi Alexander: It is a genuine pleasure to follow the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve), who has made a characteristically thoughtful and informed speech.
This is the first occasion on which I have made a speech on the subject of the EU since the referendum. I have stayed away from previous debates in this Chamber because I felt conflicted—conflicted by my personal views and political instincts, and conflicted by my constituency’s large vote to remain and my country’s narrow vote to leave. I was a fervent campaigner for remain, and I believe that the British public were failed in the referendum by an exaggerated and embarrassing debate. I deeply regret my own failure as the then shadow Health Secretary to expose the lie that Brexit would automatically mean more cash for the NHS. But we are where we are: 16 million people voted to remain, 17 million voted to leave, and 13 million people who could have voted chose not to do so.
I stand by my long-held view that leaving the EU will be economically harmful, socially divisive and fundamentally detrimental to our country’s relationships with its closest neighbours. If I could see a positive way through this that would respect the referendum result and leave our country economically and socially stronger, I would grasp it, but at the moment I cannot. On that basis, I cannot see how I could vote to trigger article 50 without a credible plan setting out the Government’s approach to the negotiations, their high-level aspirations and the process that will be in place thereafter. The strength of the plan is critical, and I will not sign up to an arbitrary timetable set by the Government to placate their own Back Benchers.
We need basic answers to basic questions. Is the Government’s ultimate priority continued tariff-free access to the single market or an end to freedom of movement? They might wish to keep up the pretence that they can have both, but the mood music from Europe suggests otherwise. Tariff-free trade with the EU has to be the priority, and if that means we have to accept immigration from within the EU, so be it.

Peter Lilley: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Heidi Alexander: I will not give way. I have come here to set out my position, and that is what I will do. If retaining tariff-free trade with the EU means that we have to pay significant sums to access the single market, so be it. Would this be a better arrangement than we have at present? Good question. So yes, I support a second referendum on the terms of leaving the EU.
The reason that we are trying to conjure up a positive economic future for our country outside the EU is to deal with the issue of immigration. I accept that a good number of the people who voted in June to leave the EU did so because they wanted to control or reduce immigration. I understand that when decent jobs and decent homes are scarce and public services are under pressure, some people look around for someone to blame, but although it might be unpopular, I say that we are going to need immigration for some time to come. We are not having enough babies, and we have not been for decades. I am a 41-year-old woman without children. Babies grow up to be taxpayers who fund public services. Who will contributing to my pension and my care in 30 years’ time? The answer is immigrants and their children. I have no fixation with freedom of movement, and if other EU states were up for modifying it, I would be up for the conversation, but it makes no sense to take the economic hit of leaving the single market in order to curb immigration when we have a basic need for it.
I would also say that if anyone thinks we should extend the system we apply to immigrants from outside the EU to those from within it, we should be honest and admit that we would be expanding a broken system that causes sclerosis in the economy because of the turgid way in which immigration applications are processed and that exerts no control over people who overstay their visas. However, my fundamental concern about prioritising immigration over all else is that we run the risk of whipping up even more of the intolerance, division and—let us be honest—hatred that we saw in the referendum campaign.

Crispin Blunt: I come to this debate straight after returning from the United States, where I have spent three days meeting Congressmen, and I can say that the remarks made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr Duncan Smith) are absolutely right. There is terrific support in Congress for a free trade deal between the United Kingdom and the United States, and that view is shared by the President-elect. There is a terrific world of opportunity out there as we view our emerging role in the world.
Last week at Chatham House, the Foreign Secretary gave the first in a series of speeches outlining our global role. I recommend it to hon. and right hon. Members because it should lift their eyes from the rather parochial preoccupation with the British plan. The point that I was trying to make in my intervention on the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer), was not that I somehow think that Europeans are the enemy. Of course I do not, and anyone who knows me knows that I do not believe that. I was making a graphic point about the plan. The whole quote goes on to say:
“When your plan meets the real world, the real world wins. Nothing goes as planned. Errors pile up. Mistaken suppositions come back to bite you. The most brilliant plan loses touch with reality.”
I do not see any particular difficulty in discerning the key elements of the British plan. I heard nothing from Opposition Members or anyone else to suggest that we should not be taking back sovereign control of immigration, which was a key issue in the vote. That does not have any implications for what immigration policy will mean, but the idea that this process of leaving the European Union will end without this House having sovereign control of immigration is for the birds. Everyone understands that, but that result has implications.
We have heard in recent days from Michel Barnier and from the German Chancellor, who have made it perfectly clear that we will not be allowed to cherry-pick our relationship with the European Union. This is where we come to the key element in the negotiations. Were we to cherry-pick, we would of course want full access to the single market on current terms and sovereign control over immigration, but we would not want to pay into the budget or to have the European Court of Justice overseeing our courts. There is room to manoeuvre in all this, such as around money and what items in the relationship we might think it appropriate for the ECJ to adjudicate on, but my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg) made the point that that relationship would be different from the one we have now.
The problem in the negotiation lies not on our side; the 27 states have an immensely difficult task. Their interests lie in the continuation of the closest possible relationship with the United Kingdom. Their interests are in our making sense of a continued British engagement in the EU’s common foreign and security policy. Ireland’s interests are absolutely engaged in this discussion. A difficult deal for the United Kingdom is a catastrophic deal for the Republic of Ireland.

Angus MacNeil: I met the Irish Foreign Minister this morning, and one of the concerns that I left with was the possibility of Northern Ireland being encircled by the sea and a hard border. That is a real possibility, particularly if we end up on WTO terms, because there is no plan from any side to say that that would be dealt with in the island of Ireland.

Crispin Blunt: The hon. Gentleman, who now chairs the International Trade Committee, will be out of work if we remain in the customs union on the same basis, so the fact that he has a Department to oversee sends a firm signal that we are going to be negotiating our own trade agreements.

Sammy Wilson: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that, because the interests of the Irish Republic are so tied up with a successful Brexit for the United Kingdom, we will have one ally in the negotiations? The same could apply to a whole range of nations across the EU.

Crispin Blunt: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. However, the principal nations of the EU, which are facing populist insurgencies in their politics, are anxious about the message that is sent. If the UK gets a really good deal, that will encourage other movements to seek the same arrangements for themselves. They have an explicit choice to make between their interests, which with the current balance of trade are to continue trading with the UK as we are, and the political message that might be sent.

Dominic Grieve: I agree with my hon. Friend’s analysis, but is it not also the case that the whole negotiating thing is about human relations, and the difficulty that we face at the moment is that the message we put out to our European partners is deeply offensive, which is going to make securing our deal with them much harder?

Crispin Blunt: My right hon. and learned Friend is, of course, absolutely right. We have to try to take the temperature down, which is why people should not exploit it when I may have said something inadvertently and I was actually saying something totally different. We are talking about our allies—most of them allies within NATO—and, in the words of the Foreign Secretary, we need to be a “flying buttress” to the future of the European Union from the outside. One reason I supported Brexit is my belief that the UK will have a much happier relationship with the nations of the EU by being outside and having engaged their support, rather than by having to fight battles as our interests diverge from those of the states that had the currency. We could see that that was going to happen over the decades. Our country has taken this decision in its medium and long-term interests, and it should be seen in that guise. It is on the other side  of the table that the principal negotiating challenge sits, as the 27 nations have to reconcile all this. My right hon. and learned Friend may say that the interpretation of positions from here is difficult, but Mr Barnier and Chancellor Merkel made a mistake in rejecting the reciprocal arrangement to try to address the situation of EU citizens here and UK citizens there, and in saying that nothing must be agreed until everything is agreed. That has played into the British position, which is helpful, as we have very much to offer the EU and it needs—

John Bercow: Order.

Andy Burnham: The sad context for today’s debate is that far from coming back together as a country since the referendum, we are probably more divided than ever. The blame for that lies not with the public, but with the way in which Parliament and the Government have responded in the six months since. In the referendum, the public were issuing a sharp rebuke to the political class, which they feel does not listen to them and is not straight with them, but what has the Government’s response been? They have been saying that they want to keep the citizens of this country in the dark about their plans for Brexit so as not to give anything away to the other side—or, as the hon. Member for Reigate (Crispin Blunt) said, “the enemy”. That is simply unacceptable. In these anti-politics times, it is hard to imagine a more politically inept approach.

Crispin Blunt: Let me just correct that. I did not say that they are the enemy and I made it crystal clear in the speech I have just given that that is not my position. If the right hon. Gentleman wants to wind the temperature up in this debate, he can go on like that, but I suggest that everyone should try to calm it.

Andy Burnham: The hon. Gentleman used the phrase “the enemy” and he needs to clarify what he meant by that. I do not think it helped to raise the tone of this debate.
The Government’s politically inept approach of saying that they can keep the public in the dark has, first, bred suspicion among remain and leave voters alike, making them think a fix is going on. Secondly, it has cast the negotiation in an unnecessarily aggressive light and has fuelled even more bad feeling towards Britain among its EU partners, in turn meaning that it will now be more difficult to get a favourable deal once article 50 has been triggered. At the moment, we are not getting a hard Brexit or a soft Brexit, but a botched Brexit. For all of our sakes, the Government need to get their act together, which is why I congratulate my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) on forcing their hand.

Angus MacNeil: rose—

Andy Burnham: I will make some progress. Today needs to mark the beginning of a new phase in the Brexit debate. It is time to move beyond the re-running of the referendum arguments and accept what people voted for. The 700,000 people in Greater Manchester who voted to leave, many of them lifelong Labour  voters, voted for change on immigration. I am clear about that, and it has to be our starting point in this debate. The status quo—full free movement—was defeated at the ballot box, so it is not an option. What is to be debated is the precise nature of the changes that replace it, so that we get the balance right between responding properly to the public’s legitimate concerns and minimising the impact on our economy.

Callum McCaig: The right hon. Gentleman’s party is suggesting that leaving the customs union was not on the ballot paper, so how come free movement of people was on the ballot paper? It simply was not. The ballot paper asked whether we should leave the EU or not.

Andy Burnham: I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that he speaks to the public and listens to what they had to say during the referendum campaign. If he is saying that they were not voting for change on free movement and immigration, I am afraid that he simply was not listening to them.
I have long argued for a change in the system of free movement to reflect people’s concerns. As it stands, it is not working for the more deprived parts of our country, particularly those where traditional industry has been replaced by lower-skill, lower-wage employment. My preference was to work within the EU to fix those problems, but the country, understandably, lost patience with that approach.
Free movement does not affect all places in the same way; it affects cities differently from former industrial areas. It has also made life more difficult in places where it is already hardest. These are areas that got no real hope from the Government when traditional industry left and that saw house prices collapse and whole streets bought up by absent private landlords. They are places that, alongside taking new arrivals from the EU, continue to take in the vast majority of this country’s asylum seekers and refugees. Largely they do so without any real strife or difficulty, so I do not want to hear anyone claim that people in places such as Leigh who voted to leave are in any way xenophobic or racist. They are welcoming, generous people, but they also want fairness, and they do not think that it is fair that the country’s least well-off communities should expect pressure on wages, housing, public services, primary schools and GP services without any help to manage it.

Steve Rotheram: I agree with my right hon. Friend that it is certainly not xenophobic or racist to call out unscrupulous employers who are causing some of the problems in our working-class areas by allowing the undercutting of wages, which is causing resentment from people who work in traditional industries such as the construction sector. Is not that what we really need to understand? We hear it constantly on the doorstep.

Andy Burnham: That is precisely the issue that neither Europe nor, let us be honest, this Parliament was addressing. Free movement was being used to undermine skilled wages and we did not do enough about it. We have to be honest about that.
People in my constituency want to continue to welcome people here who contribute to our society, but they want an immigration system that affords greater control  and reduces the numbers. I believe that that is what we must work towards. The left across Europe has got to break out of its paralysis on this issue. The fear of being labelled as “pandering” stops people entering the debate, but it also stops progressive ideas that meet the public’s concerns and leaves the pitch clear for those with right-wing solutions.
I want to set out two principal reasons why there is a legitimate left-wing case for reform. First, in an era of increasing globalisation, free movement has arguably been providing greater benefit to large companies than it has to the most deprived communities. There is nothing socialist about a system of open borders that allows multinationals to treat people as commodities and to move them around Europe to drive down labour costs and create a race to the bottom.
Secondly, there is a strong case for saying that the immigration system that has developed over time in this country is inherently discriminatory—it does not treat all migrants equally. Instead, it accords a preferential status to migrants from our nearest neighbours in the context of a policy that seeks to cap numbers. That, therefore, discriminates against those non-EU migrants who seek to come here and who have families here.
My call to this side of the House is to put forward a plan that treats all people equally and that applies progressive principles to migration. We need to make the argument for an immigration system that allows for greater control and that reduces the numbers coming here, but that does so in a fair way. This would be a system that treats all migrants equally, that does not allow people’s wages to be undercut, as my hon. Friend said, and, crucially, that continues to welcome people from Europe and around the world to work here. Those are progressive principles that can form the basis of a new immigration policy for the left.
It is time for many of us on this side of the House to confront a hard truth: our reluctance in confronting this debate is undermining the cohesion of our communities and the safety of our streets. I am no longer prepared to be complicit in that. We need answers to the public’s concerns, but answers that are based on hope, not hate.

Bernard Jenkin: I found the speech by the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) rather refreshing. I submit that democracy is an awesome thing. When the tide turns in the minds of the voters, it is refreshing to see their democratically elected representatives turning as well. I wish him well in advancing a humane case for a humane and sensible immigration policy.
We have to acknowledge that this is a fraught moment—for some, it is painful—in our history, as the hon. Member for Lewisham East (Heidi Alexander) demonstrated. We need to take on board the points made about healing divisions and adopting the right tone. The House should look at the continuum of our history: a whole millennium of this nation. Our successors will look back on this short period in which we were a member of the EU very differently. We have been in this organisation for only 43 years, which is a tiny span of our history. We debate it hotly now, but all the controversy will pass, and we will look back with much more equanimity than we feel today.

John Redwood: Does my hon. Friend agree that as we bring the country together it is important that people do not look for possible or imaginary problems, because we want the strongest possible position to negotiate the best possible answer for the country, and we need to unite to do so?

Bernard Jenkin: I wholly agree with my right hon. Friend.
The Latin monetary union was formed in 1865 in Europe and lasted for 62 years, but has been completely forgotten. It is never discussed. It came and went, and I think that we will come to see our EU membership, barely longer than a generation, in the same way.
There are two aspects to the motion. First, the Government will produce a plan—we all agree about that now. I do not think it came as a surprise that the Government conceded that point. Secondly, it seems that most Members will vote for the invocation of article 50 by 31 March 2017. We can demonstrate to the country that there is a great measure of consensus, but it prompts the question of why there is a court case, and why the courts have chosen to become involved, particularly once the motion is carried. We do not need a court to tell the House that it is sovereign. The House could stop Brexit whenever it wanted, as it could stop anything else that a Government do if it chose to do so. It is unfortunate that a different kind of judiciary is developing, as I do not think that Parliament ever voted for that. We await the outcome of the Supreme Court ruling with respect and great interest to see if that is the kind of judiciary that we want.

Angus MacNeil: Does the hon. Gentleman share concerns about the headlong rush to trigger article 50? Given that there may be 12 months of negotiations, if there is no deal in place the UK might find itself trading under WTO conditions, which would not be beneficial, particularly in the agricultural sector but also in a whole host of other activities. Has he thought about the consequences? I think that industry is not suitably engaged and is not demanding from Government the conditions in which it wants the UK to trade after 2019.

Bernard Jenkin: The hon. Gentleman will find that a great deal of industry is quietly preparing for the possibility that there will not be an agreement. It is much more adaptable than many of us in the House. It is much more able to deal with change than many of us in government. What we are seeking in the plan is less complexity and less uncertainty, because that is what preoccupies people. Some people are talking up the complexity—some people want more uncertainty—to try to make a point. However, we have an opportunity in the plan to have less complexity and less uncertainty. My right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr Lilley) made it clear that the Prime Minister has cleared up a great deal of uncertainty, but that many in the opposition choose not to hear.
As for the aim of the article 50 agreement, it should be to put as little in the agreement as possible. If we want an agreement, let us not overload the process. Let us keep to the bare minimum. Let us try to shorten the timeframe. I was encouraged that Michel Barnier, the negotiator at the European Commission, wants to shorten the period of negotiations. Perhaps the European Commission is beginning to feel the pressure from  business and people outside politics who want us to get on with this process, not drag it out and make it take 10 years or some of the more ridiculous suggestions.
We should be in a position to make a generous offer in our opening bid, which I expect to be included in the White Paper. It is worth reminding ourselves what the treaties invite the EU to do. Article 8 of the treaty on European Union states:
“The Union shall develop a special relationship with neighbouring countries, aiming to establish an area of prosperity”.
The EU should read its own treaties before it starts its negotiation. Article 3.5 says that in its relations with the wider world, the EU
“shall contribute to peace, security . . . mutual respect among peoples”
and
“free and fair trade”.
Our opening pitch should be very simple. We should make an offer—a zero/zero offer: we will give EU countries zero tariffs on their exports to our country, if they will give us zero tariffs on their imports from us. That is in everyone’s interest. It is in the interest of jobs on the continent and in the United Kingdom.
We should also offer an opportunity for mutual recognition of services agreements so that we can continue trading in services, as we do now. That, again, would be in everybody’s interest. We want the European Union to have access to the global financial capital and we want to be able to trade in the European Union in the same way. Of course we will offer continued co-operation, as the Secretary of State said, in justice and home affairs, security and defence, and foreign policy. We want to be the good neighbours.
Finally, the repeal Bill can be simple, unless people choose to make it complicated to try and carry on scoring points. The European Communities Act is a few clauses long. We need a repeal Bill of only a few clauses, setting out the principles by which we leave. It is worth reminding ourselves that the Czech Republic and Slovakia were one country and within six months of deciding to split, they split, and they are better friends now than they ever were before. That is the kind of relationship that I look forward to having with our European partners. Let us move it along quickly. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will do a quicker deal and offer a quick Brexit in everyone’s interests, to reduce the uncertainty and keep things simple.

Tom Brake: The hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) asked what kind of judiciary we want. Well, we want a judiciary that is independent and will not be brow-beaten by the likes of the Daily Mail.
We should thank Labour for initiating this debate today. When the Leader of the House, standing in at Prime Minister’s questions, was asked about this, he took credit on behalf of the Government for the debate taking place today. The Government cannot share the credit for this debate, although they should, of course, have initiated such a debate in their own time.
Labour may take some satisfaction from securing from the Prime Minister a promise to publish a rather sketchy plan before article 50 is invoked, but in the words of the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg), this is thin gruel. How many hours before article 50 is invoked will the plan be published? Will there be any time to debate it, challenge the Government on it or vote on it? Will the plan be a White Paper or a Green Paper? Will it amount to anything more than “Brexit means Brexit”, “no running commentary” and now “a red, white and blue Brexit”, another meaningless phrase to add to the lexicon of Brexit platitudes that masquerade as policy?
Where is the guarantee that the people will be able to vote on the destination as well as the departure? The right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr Duncan Smith) said in his speech earlier that destination and departure are the same thing. I do not know about him, but when I catch a train, I do not arrive at the same place at the end of my journey. Why do people need a vote on the destination as well as on the departure? Because whatever rough outline of a deal the Government manage to secure towards the end of the two years of negotiations after article 50 has been invoked, we can be certain that a majority will not be happy. The 48% clearly will not be happy; what of the 52%?

John Redwood: Has the right hon. Gentleman taken the trouble to listen to the statements, to come to the several debates that the Government have put on, and to read the Prime Minister’s very full speech on the subject at the party conference and all the other statements which made very clear what our negotiating aim is—good access to the single market and the freedom of this country back again.

Tom Brake: No doubt that is the position that the right hon. Gentleman has adopted today, and he may have done so consistently over a number of months, but there are many others here in very senior positions who adopt a different position on a daily basis.

James Heappey: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Tom Brake: No. I will continue because I know that others who have been waiting a very long time also want to speak in the debate.
How many of the 52% will be happy if, for instance, the Government secure a deal that requires the UK to pay a substantial amount to the EU budget—not just the relatively small sums that might be required to stay in, for instance, Erasmus or Horizon 2020, but the larger amounts that might be required to secure privileged access to the single market? That is why the Government are going to need public support on this issue, and that is why the Liberal Democrats have tabled an amendment that would allow people to have a say on the final deal.
As I stated, there is no indication of what the plan will actually include, yet we as Members of Parliament are expected to bind ourselves to triggering article 50, no matter what, at an arbitrary date. The High Court has made it clear that Parliament must have a proper role in this process, and that does not mean signing away any right to scrutiny in exchange for the shallowest  of promises from a Government that cannot hack any questioning of their motives, strategy or direction. We will not allow ourselves to be bullied into this, and all Opposition parties—and some Members, I hope, on the Government Benches—should resist that. The Liberal Democrats will vote against the Government amendment and the motion, if amended. We cannot support a parliamentary stitch-up that would deny the people a vote on the final deal and straitjacket Members of Parliament in an arbitrary timetable.
I call on the Labour party to remember that it is the official Opposition; it should not cave in to Conservative attempts to deny the public a final say on the most important question facing the country in a generation—it should not be muzzled. It is now clear that the Liberal Democrats are the real Opposition to the Conservative Brexit Government. We are striving to keep Britain open, tolerant and united.

Steven Baker: I am grateful to follow the right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake). I rise to give the Government my complete support.

Kwasi Kwarteng: First time.

Steven Baker: No, it is not the first time—I am grateful to my hon. Friend.
I want to pick up on what the Secretary of State said—that there are none so deaf as those who will not hear. I will go on to talk about what else might be said, but, first, what has the Prime Minister said? In particular, she has said:
“Our laws made not in Brussels but in Westminster.
Our judges sitting not in Luxembourg but in courts across the land.
The authority of EU law in this country ended forever.”
Of the deal, she has said:
“I want it to include cooperation on law enforcement and counter-terrorism work.
I want it to involve free trade, in goods and services.
I want it to give British companies the maximum freedom to trade with and operate within the Single Market—and let European businesses do the same here.
But let’s state one thing loud and clear: we are not leaving the European Union only to give up control of immigration all over again. And we are not leaving only to return to the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice. That’s not going to happen.”
So the Prime Minister has said a great deal, and it has been supplemented elsewhere.
One thing I particularly welcome is my right hon. Friend’s work to secure reciprocal rights for those EU citizens currently resident in the UK and for those British citizens currently resident in the EU. What we have learned through the press is that 20 member states seem to have agreed to her framework arrangements, but that the Chancellor of Germany and EU officials at the most senior levels are obstructing that—indifferently and intransigently—when they could actually put people’s minds at ease by agreeing with our Prime Minister.

Bill Cash: Does my hon. Friend accept that what goes with the Prime Minister’s very clear statements is that jurisdiction returns here? After the negotiations  and the repeal, we will bring in our own Bill to deal, for example, with immigration and with a whole range of other matters. It will be this jurisdiction that deals with those things, not the European jurisdiction.

Steven Baker: I fully accept that. In fact, together with the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham), who spoke a few minutes ago, I very much hope that we are able to deliver a much more equal immigration policy, which treats people much more fairly, from wherever they may come.
On the point about reciprocal rights, I particularly pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Michael Tomlinson). Although he has not long been in the House, he has been absolutely indefatigable on this issue, and I look forward to seeing what else he has to say.
On the EEA and the customs union, I refer to the argument of my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr Lilley), who made the case brilliantly. We cannot stay in the customs union if we want tariff-free trade with other parts of the world. We cannot stay in the EEA if we want 80% of our economy to be subject to new free trade arrangements with the rest of the world, because one has to put one’s domestic regulation on the table. Therefore, the implication of what the Prime Minister has said—that we are going to be a beacon of free trade—is that we must leave both.

John Redwood: Does my hon. Friend agree that there is absolutely no need to pay these countries anything, because they need to trade with us and I am sure they are not going to pay us?

Steven Baker: I do agree. It would be quite wrong for us to pay a market access fee. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) said, they sell us more than we buy from them, so perhaps they should be paying us a fee. Of course, the facetious nature of his remark, if I may say so, indicates the fallacy at work. It is one thing for us to cover the costs of programmes in which we participate but quite another simply to pay for the privilege of selling.
I offer some other things that the Government might consider saying, and that would not harm our position, when they set out their framework agreement. We could state our intentions on third-country passporting for deemed equivalence and mutual recognition, particularly in relation to the financial services industry. I recommend the Legatum Institute Special Trade Commission’s report on that subject. We could say that our withdrawal agreement will cover trade and non-trade aspects of our relationship, including, in particular, those covered in the magisterial 1,000-page document from Business for Britain. No one can say that there was not plenty of high-quality research available before the vote. We could say that we will have mutual recognition of products, standards, licences and qualifications. We could explain trade facilitation. We could talk about territorial waters and our intentions there. We could talk about our intentions for the aggregate measure of support in agriculture.
The Government could explain how the great repeal Bill will work, how transposition of EU law into UK law will work, what will happen when something needs to be amended or repealed, and what exceptions there  will be. I believe we can do much better on competition law—in particular, in driving out anti-competitive market distortions—than the EU currently does. We could explain our process for trade deal ratification. We need to say more about how WTO rectification will work. There has already been a written ministerial statement, but more can be said.
We need to explain to our trading partners all around the world our willingness to liberalise, to be more free-trading and to ensure that we are able to lift out of poverty people in some of the poorest agricultural regions of the world who are currently excluded from trading in a proper manner.

Iain Duncan Smith: Speak for decency.

Steven Baker: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. We need to help those people to build their way out of poverty through trade.
I would like to give the Government an example of a form of words that could be used to reassure industry. If I make mistakes on this, they are my own, but this is derived from some advice from a trade negotiation lawyer. We could say: “The terms of our withdrawal agreement will ensure no UK-owned or UK-based manufacturer will be disadvantaged by our exit. Both EU and UK manufacturers seek tariff and barrier-free access to each other’s markets, and we will seek to deliver it with a broad, deep and permanent free trade agreement. We intend that manufacturers in the UK will either pay no tariffs or that they will have the opportunity to take advantage of a fully WTO-compliant tariff drawback system. UK manufacturing, after we leave the EU, will be more successful, more competitive, and lower-cost.” If the Government made that statement, everyone would begin to understand that our future will be far brighter once we have left the European Union, taken back control and made our own way.
I leave the House with this thought: the Legatum Institute Special Trade Commission proposes that, if we implement the very best in contemporary trade practice, we can add an extra 50% to gross world product in the next 15 years. That means unemployment at 2% in the UK, no deficit and billions of people lifted out of poverty.

Thangam Debbonaire: I rise to speak in support of my constituents, the people of Bristol West. Four out of five of them voted to remain, but they are all democrats. We have been dealt nothing but uncertainty by the Government, and that uncertainty cannot go on, because it is not good enough. It is already affecting businesses and individuals in Bristol West, and I will fight for them.
The big employers in my constituency—the university, the aerospace industry, the financial services sector and the healthcare system—all depend on the current free movement of labour and harmonisation of regulations across the EU. That may not sound sexy, but it is really important. The cost of imports and raw materials has gone up as the pound has sunk. The university and the tech and creative sectors have told me that they are being cut out of collaborative research and development proposals funded by Horizon 2020 and other streams.  We do not know whether the Government will protect EU workers’ rights and environmental protection and bring them into UK legislation.
I passionately support the current free—or, rather, reciprocal—movement of people around the European Union. That provision has helped our industries, and I want it to be part of where we end up. I welcome and value all the EU citizens working in Bristol, and I know well the benefits for the UK when people from the UK are able to live, work, study and retire in other EU countries. There is complete uncertainty for all those people. They are not bargaining chips; they are people.
Young people, as the right hon. Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry) has said, feel betrayed by this decision. They have told me that they feel as though we have thrown away their futures. I have also heard from industry that the harmonisation of regulations between the UK and the EU for our key industries must be part of what we end up with in order for them to trade freely; that is something other Members have spoken about. I want the UK to retain its right to apply for funds from Horizon 2020, to help us to remain in our position as a place that has among the best university provision in the world.
Many of us, from all parts of the House, feel we are economically better off being a full part of the single European market than being out of it. Anyone in the world can trade with the single European market. I want us, and businesses in my constituency want us, to do that as full members without tariffs and barriers. That is a choice that the Government could take.

John Redwood: Did the hon. Lady learn anything from the referendum majority view? Does she not understand that a lot of people think that we are inviting too many people in, which makes it difficult to have good public services and decent wages?

Thangam Debbonaire: I have heard the result of the referendum, but I also know that there are 33,000 people from EU countries working in our NHS at the moment and that they face complete uncertainty, as does the NHS.
Labour has forced the Government to climb down today. Without the leadership shown by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer), the Government would have continued to refuse to give this House any information about their overall aims for the UK’s relationship with the EU. Now they have had to commit to providing that information before they trigger article 50, and I thank my hon. and learned Friend for that. The Supreme Court may yet rule that the Government also have to give Parliament the right to vote on the matter, and I hope that it does so. The Government could end that uncertainty today and cut the expense of this court case by deciding to commit to giving this House full scrutiny and a vote.
My inbox is rammed with emails from constituents asking me to resist article 50, and I believe that that is, in large part, because of the absence of a good plan for Brexit. My constituents are not unreasonable. They know that 52% of those who voted in June voted to leave, but they want the views of the 48% to be represented in this process. I will do that unstintingly, because to do otherwise would be to allow a tyranny of the majority, which I do not believe is worthy of this House. My  constituents deserve to know what the plan is; whether it will help or hinder our jobs, our industries, our environment and our standing in the world; and, above all, what will happen to our reciprocal movement of people, about which people are left with great uncertainty.
When I went out of my front door this morning, I may not have been certain exactly which bus I would get, but I knew the route it needed to take me on. I knew which bus stop to start at. I did not just get on any old bus without looking at the number and checking that it was going where I intended to go. I cannot ask my constituents in Bristol West to get on an unnumbered bus, and I do not think that hon. Members representing people who voted with the majority to leave want their constituents to get on an unnumbered bus either.
Whether people voted leave or remain in June, they did not vote to lose their jobs; they did not vote to lose trans-border co-operation over terrorism; and they did not vote to dirty our beaches and rivers by removing our protection from pollution and our protection for the air. For the sake of everyone, whether leave voters or remainers, we need to see the plan—not the full negotiating strategy, but the plan.

Mike Gapes: I agree entirely with what my hon. Friend is saying, but is there not also a problem in that, in their amendment, the Government are proposing we start the process of leaving the European Union on or by 31 March? We know that there will be elections in Germany, the Netherlands and France and that real negotiations cannot start then, so the period will be limited.

Thangam Debbonaire: I understand the point my hon. Friend makes, but I believe my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras has secured a good deal for us. It is not certain, and some of my constituents will want to know why I am voting the way I am voting tonight, but I will vote with the Labour shadow Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union because I support what he has done to get this Government to make their plan clear. If, to get that, I have to agree to vote for what seems like a very sulky Government amendment, then so be it. It is worth making such a compromise because my constituents in Bristol West deserve to know and want to know what the plan is. Local campaigning organisations in Bristol—they have campaigned strongly for and supported Europe—have created and adopted a petition with some key demands and are circulating it, and I support them in doing so.
I ask the Government to get on with answering these questions for the sake of the people of Bristol West and of the whole of the UK. This Government are trying to avoid scrutiny, but Labour are holding them to account. I will continue to stand up for the industries, the jobs and, above all, the people of Bristol West. The Opposition will hold the Government to the agreement to bring their plan to this House for scrutiny and a vote, and if that plan is non-existent or inadequate, I will vote against article 50. I owe that to my constituents and to the country.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for  Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire), who is a near constituency neighbour of mine, although I cannot say I am in agreement either with her or with most of her constituents.
This is a very interesting debate. As one listened to the hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer), one discovered that Labour Members really had nothing to debate at all. They have accepted the assurances of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that he would keep the House up to date. They have accepted that there would be no disclosure of material that was in any way damaging to the negotiations. Just to add a cherry to the top of the cake that we are all looking forward to eating in due course, they have accepted a date for the implementation of article 50. Her Majesty’s loyal Opposition have reached the point of such loyalty that they are having an Opposition day debate to back the policy of Her Majesty’s Government.
I think this is a very interesting way of spending our time, and perhaps having the Opposition supporting Government policy will be a new means of forming consensus across Parliament, but one does wonder why they decided to have a day’s debate on this—purely to support the Government—rather than on the other things they could have debated. The answer one comes to is that, when the Government tabled their amendment last night, they cooked the Opposition’s goose. This debate is not really about the form of words used—or even the split infinitive—in Her Majesty’s Opposition’s motion, but about seeking to reject the decision that was made by the British people on 23 June.
That is what underlies every bit of this process. One minute, it is about delay, with hon. Gentlemen and hon. Ladies on the Labour Benches—some even on the Government side—saying, “We are doing it too fast. We should slow down and be a bit more cautious, because it would be so dangerous to do what the British people asked us to do at the pace at which they expected us to do it. Surely that is not wise.” Such people have delayed Brexit through applications to the Court.
Labour Members have also come to Parliament. Oh, how wonderful—what joy that, suddenly, so many of them are in favour of parliamentary scrutiny. When I sat in the Chamber discussing issues sent for debate by the European Scrutiny Committee, were the Benches heaving? Time after time, Labour Members were represented only by their Front-Bench spokesman. In debates in Committee put forward by the European Scrutiny Committee, in which every Member has an entitlement to turn up and be heard, do debates run for the full two and a half hours that they are allotted, or do people try to get through them in about 10 minutes and then go back to signing their Christmas cards? Parliamentary scrutiny has become the watchword of people who held Parliament in contempt. Why do they bring it up? Because they are condescending to the British people: they think the British people got it wrong.

Thangam Debbonaire: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I am honoured to give way to the hon. Lady.

Thangam Debbonaire: The hon. Gentleman and I debated this very issue many times during the referendum campaign—and, I must say, very courteously—but does  he not remember what he said so many times, which is that Parliament should be sovereign? If Parliament is sovereign, surely we have to scrutinise and vote on the deal.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: Parliament is indeed sovereign, and Parliament, in its wisdom, passed a referendum Bill; and my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council said that it was advisory. Just think about that. Who was it supposed to advise? Did Parliament pass a Bill to advise itself? Surely not. If it had been to advise Parliament, Parliament would have made the Bill automatically effective, because we do not need to advise ourselves on the Bills that we should pass. It was clearly an exercise of parliamentary sovereignty to advise the Crown in the exercise of the prerogative. Parliamentary sovereignty has already been expressed and ought to be fulfilled.
Those who are appealing now to parliamentary scrutiny are in fact rejecting an Act passed through this House, and worse, they are rejecting our employers—our bosses, our liege lords—the British people, who decided this matter for us. They use a glorious language, of which Lewis Carroll would have been proud—a Humpty-Dumpty-esque approach to saying what they really mean. Even in this motion—when it was first brought forward, before the Government had managed to corral it into, in effect, a Government motion—they say how much they respect the decision. Respect! The word has been changed by the lexicographers. It used to mean that one held something in high esteem and high regard and believed it should be implemented; now it means “condescend to, think ridiculous, think unwise”. The word “respect” has been utterly devalued by those on the Opposition Benches, as they feel the British people got it wrong. Let us not use the word “respect” of the electorate any more; let us say, “Obey,” for we will obey the British electorate.
And yes indeed, we have a plan. There is a plan set out clearly, and that is that we will leave. Everything else flows from that—everything else is leather or prunella. Leaving means, as the Prime Minister said, that there is no more superiority of EU law; the European Court of Justice may advise and witter on but no more will it outrank this House, and any contribution we make to the European Union will be from our overseas aid budget, because it will be supporting poor countries.

Adam Afriyie: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: Of course I will give way.

Adam Afriyie: Pray may my hon. Friend continue.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I am extremely grateful for the extra minute.
Leaving is everything. That is the point. The rest of it is subsidiary. It is the ordinary activity of government, which the Government do as long as they command a majority in this House. The ultimate parliamentary scrutiny, which all Governments have suffered from going back at least to the 19th century and probably before, is the ability to command a majority in this House. If a Government can do that, it is then quite right that they are able to exercise the royal prerogative  in the details of negotiation. As my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin) so rightly put it, if we were to tie down every jot and tittle of what the Government were negotiating, we would spend our whole time in the law courts. That makes government impossible.
It is not a man, a plan, a canal: Panama—a wonderful palindrome. It is a lady, a plan, freedom: Brexit.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Eleanor Laing: Order. Such has been the excess of interventions and excited speeches this afternoon that I am afraid I have to reduce the time limit to four minutes.

Joanna Cherry: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg), particularly as I will say something about legislative consent motions, about which we have tussled previously. I draw his attention to something that may interest him regarding what he said towards the end of his speech. If he would care to look at page 154 of the transcript of the Supreme Court proceedings yesterday afternoon, he will see that the Supreme Court referred to the fact that at the time that the Bill to permit the referendum was going through this House, no less than the Government spokesperson, the then Minister for Europe, now Leader of the House, said:
“The legislation is about holding a vote; it makes no provision for what follows. The referendum is advisory”.—[Official Report, 16 June 2015; Vol. 597, c. 231.]
Now is the time for this House to make provision about what follows on from the vote.
What I really want to speak about, in the brief time I have, is the concern on the Scottish National party Benches that the motion makes no call for the devolved nations to have a formal role, or for their agreement to be sought before triggering article 50. The right hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove) made much of his desire to protect the concerns of the 48% across the UK who voted to remain part of the EU. My concern, and the concern of my colleagues, is to protect the interests of the 62% of Scots who voted to remain part of the EU. I am sure some of my hon. Friends sitting on the Benches behind me will be concerned to protect the interests of the 56% of Northern Irish voters who voted to remain in the EU.
Triggering article 50 will lead to the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament being curtailed and the rights of individuals and businesses being affected. That is why the Lord Advocate has been on his feet this afternoon, across the road in the Supreme Court, arguing that the consent of the Scottish Parliament should be sought. Like the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke), I do not want to talk about the legalities; but I want to talk about the political implications of the line the Government have adopted in the Supreme Court.
The Exiting the European Union Committee was told, by a witness at our very first session, that failure to obtain the consent of the Scottish Parliament to the negotiations around article 50 would trigger a constitutional crisis.

John Redwood: Does the hon. and learned Lady not understand that when we get the powers back from the European Union more power can go to the Scottish Parliament?

Joanna Cherry: The right hon. Gentleman is getting rather ahead of himself, but we on the SNP Benches will make a careful note of that, because the person who officially speaks for Scotland—the one Tory MP in Scotland—seems rather unclear about what powers will be returned to Scotland. But we take on board what the right hon. Gentleman says and we make a careful note of it.

Stephen Gethins: My hon. and learned Friend makes a very good point. The Secretary of State said that no law would be changed for which this Parliament has a responsibility. Will the law be changed for which the Scottish Parliament has responsibility? That question has not been answered yet.

Joanna Cherry: Indeed that question has not been answered yet. The point of my speech this afternoon is to say that the effect of triggering article 50 is to trigger an inevitable process for leaving the EU, which means that the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament will be affected—and that triggers the Sewel convention. My concern is that yesterday, when the Advocate General spoke on behalf of the British Government, he basically told the Supreme Court that the Sewel convention has no legal effect whatever—that it is a political convention that can be overridden at the whim of this Parliament.
The Supreme Court will determine the legality of the situation, but the politics of that statement is not what we were told by the Secretary of State for Scotland, and by others in the Conservative party, when the Scotland Bill was going through the House. As Lord Sumption, a Justice of the Supreme Court, asked the Advocate General yesterday afternoon, what was the point of putting the Sewel convention on a legal footing in statute if it has no legal force? The political consequence of the whole thrust of the arguments made on behalf of the UK Government in the Supreme Court is to show utter disrespect to the Sewel convention and utter disrespect to the wishes of voters in Scotland, and indeed in Northern Ireland.
That does not sit well with the respect agenda promised by the previous Prime Minister; with us in Scotland being told during the independence referendum that we were an equal partner in this Union; and with us also being told during that referendum campaign, by Ruth Davidson and others, that the only way to guarantee Scotland’s membership of the EU was to vote to remain part of the UK. Those promises were all made on behalf of the Conservative party. The Conservative party’s legal position in the Supreme Court is to kick sand in the eyes of voters in Scotland and to dishonour those promises. My point is that that has serious political consequences for this Union.
I know that the Secretary of State is a very reasonable man, and that he is conscious that not to give Scotland a role in this process, regardless of what the Supreme Court says, would be deeply damaging from a political and constitutional point of view. So my request to him this afternoon is this. Please, Secretary of State, persuade the Prime Minister and her Cabinet colleagues to involve the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament  formally in this process. Listen to what my colleagues in Edinburgh have to say, because they are the legitimate voice of the Scottish people—they won a third term recently. Involve us in the process. Honour the words of the Secretary of State for Scotland, treat the Sewel convention seriously, and regardless of what the Supreme Court says, from a political point of view seek our consent to this process.

Dominic Raab: I welcome the opportunity to debate this important—indeed, defining—issue for our country. This is the 14th time Ministers, including the Prime Minister, have come to the House to debate or answer questions on Brexit, and there have also been four Westminster Hall debates. The Exiting the European Union Committee is up and running; indeed we took evidence this morning from the CBI and the TUC. That is the vital role for Parliament in this Brexit process. Let no one say that Parliament is not already discharging its responsibilities, and let no one confuse that essential scrutiny role with the designs of—let us face it—a small and dwindling minority who genuinely seek to delay or derail Brexit.
I view Brexit as a three-stage process. First came the incredibly important but short-term job of stabilising the economy in the immediate aftermath of the vote. If we take a moment to look at that, we will see that the Government have done a very good job. I also pay tribute to the previous Government for the resilience of the economy now. We are the fastest-growing G7 economy this year, with record employment levels, inflation dipping below 1% and strong purchasing managers’ index data. We have also had a vote of confidence from business after business, including, in car manufacturing, from Nissan; in tech, from Facebook, Apple and Google; and, in pharmaceuticals, from GSK and AstraZeneca. All have announced fresh investment in this country since 23 June.
The second stage is to prepare for the Brexit negotiations. No one can underestimate the huge amount of work going on behind the scenes, for which I pay tribute to Ministers and their wider teams. The contours of our negotiation are plain for anyone to see, except those deliberately closing their eyes. We must give effect to the will of the British people. At the time of the referendum, every party leader seemed, at least in theory, to accept that premise, but now Labour and particularly the Liberal Democrats are cynically changing their position. I am still not clear exactly where the Labour Front-Bench team stand.
The vote to leave the EU was a vote to take back national democratic control of our laws, our money and our borders, as we were reminded almost daily during the referendum campaign, but I do not want to dwell on that. The Prime Minister told the House on 24 October that she would set out the high-level principles before and after the Christmas recess—well before triggering article 50—and that is wise, but it would clearly be utterly foolish to show our negotiating hand to our European partners in any more detail before then.

Sammy Wilson: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the Prime Minister could at last make it clear that our membership of the customs union and the internal  market are incompatible with the other objectives the Government have set out? At least then we could have clarity on those two issues.

Dominic Raab: The hon. Gentleman makes a powerful point. It is my view that, given the positions already announced, we will almost inevitably be coming out of the customs union and the single market. Incidentally, that is also the evidence given to the Brexit Committee by everyone we have heard from so far. I understand why the Government do not want to drip feed their negotiating strategy into the public domain but want to let us know when they are ready with the whole strategy, and we now have a clear timetable for that.
I want to get beyond the procedures, the tricksy games trying to trip up the Government, the name calling on both sides and the divisiveness of the referendum campaign. Instead, I want to spell out the positive, ambitious, optimistic vision that we on all sides ought to share for our post-Brexit relationship with our European friends. On trade, we want as few barriers as possible, in our rational, mutual economic self-interest. On security co-operation, there is a host of things that we can do together without being subject to the European Court’s jurisdiction. On policing, there is Europol, as well as the PNR—passenger name record—system and other forms of data sharing. All those things are already done with non-EU members.
We can continue with and strengthen our commitment to our European friends, particularly in the aftermath of the Brussels and Paris terrorist attacks. On defence co-operation, I praise the Prime Minister’s incredibly important commitment to our Polish allies during the Polish Prime Minister’s visit here last month. Poland and Europe should know that we stand shoulder to shoulder with our European allies in the face of the menace posed by President Putin, regardless of the position of the President-elect across the pond.
On immigration, between the positions of open-door immigration and pulling up the drawbridge, it seems to me that there is huge scope for central arrangements on visa waivers for tourism and business trips, and for skills migration to be subject to permits. Such systems would still allow us to maintain national democratic control in the way that the British people expect. I hope we can move beyond procedures and the divisiveness of the referendum campaign, and work together across the House. That is what the British public, by three to one, expect us to do—no more political games, but getting on with delivering Brexit. I commend and support the motion and the amendment.

Mark Durkan: Those who have spoken most strongly in favour of the Prime Minister’s amendment have generally taken some time to ridicule and carp at the Opposition’s motion. They have questioned the wording, asking what “plan” means, for example, and they have even criticised the language for its split infinitives and the like. They are denigrating the very motion that they now claim to want to pass, as amended by the Government amendment.
Sometimes consensus can be a great and powerful thing; at other times it can be a risky thing. Many Members have often counselled against consensus. When  the consensus is entirely artificial, however, and is made up of a purely ephemeral coincidence of tactics without any substantive or strategic work, we should not fall for it. I am here to represent my constituents, who voted by more than 78% to remain, and I know that they would not fall for this amended motion.

John Redwood: Is it not a good idea to try to get a consensus to back the British people in their decision?

Mark Durkan: I am not one of the British people; I am here as an Irish person, proudly carrying an Irish passport. However, I fully respect the terms on which other hon. Members come to this House. I come to the debate in circumstances in which the people of Northern Ireland voted by 56% to remain, while the people of my constituency voted by 78% to remain, as I said. The people of Northern Ireland, moreover, previously voted for the Good Friday agreement in a unique dual referendum process involving the north and south of Ireland—that was the high watermark of Irish constitutional democracy. I am pledged to adhere to that and I make no apology to anybody for it. I do not seek to indict the terms on which anyone else comes to this House to speak in this or any other debate.
The principle of consent is meant to be the core of the Good Friday agreement. It is not only housed in that agreement, but it was the principle of consent that was used to endorse the agreement. A week after the 23 June referendum, the then Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Mrs Villiers), tabled a written statement on the security situation in Northern Ireland. The words she used about republican dissidents on 30 June were interesting.

Kwasi Kwarteng: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Mark Durkan: She said—

Eleanor Laing: Order. A point of order has been raised by Mr Kwarteng.

Kwasi Kwarteng: I have just realised, Madam Deputy Speaker, that my intended point of order has been attended to by the Clerks. It involved the clock.

Eleanor Laing: Thank you. The clock was stuck, and it is now working again.

Mark Durkan: The then Secretary of State said:
“Their activities are against the democratically expressed wishes of the people in Northern Ireland. They continue to seek relevance and inflict harm on a society that overwhelmingly rejects them”—
she could have been talking about the Northern Ireland Conservatives. She continued:
“Their support is very limited. Northern Ireland’s future will only be determined by democracy and consent.”—[Official Report, 30 June 2016; Vol. 612, c. 13WS.]
Where is the democracy and consent for the people of Northern Ireland when it comes to Brexit? Many of us are free to come here and vote against article 50 as and when the relevant provisions are tabled. When we do so, that will be consistent with our principled support for the Good Friday agreement and consistent with our pledges to our constituents honourably to represent them.

Michael Gove: As a result of the Good Friday agreement and the consent principle, the people of Northern Ireland voted to remain in the United Kingdom, and to give foreign policy and treaty-making powers to the UK Government. There is no inconsistency between a UK Government choosing to trigger article 50 and the hon. Gentleman’s constituents having objections to that. There is no breach of a consensus.

Mark Durkan: I am afraid the right hon. Gentleman does not know the difference—people in Northern Ireland are very clear about this—between the principle of consent and actually giving consent. He has made a mistake that is consistently made, and it is a mistake that will strain some people’s belief in the Good Friday agreement.
People such as the right hon. Gentleman do not recognise the damage that they are doing. Carefully compacted layers of understanding created the bedrock of the Good Friday agreement, and fissures are being driven into those key foundations. Remember that, as a result of that agreement, the principle of consent is housed in the Irish constitution as well, because the referendum—north and south—changed the constitution. It removed the territorial claim, and two additional clauses were inserted.
If the key constitutional precept of the Good Friday agreement is not housed in any new UK-EU treaty that might result from these negotiations, we shall be in a very serious situation. The promise and the understanding that the people of Ireland, north and south, were given when they endorsed the Good Friday agreement in overwhelming numbers will have been betrayed and damaged. I do not accept, and no Irish nationalist, north or south, who supported the Good Friday agreement has ever said, that the principle of consent that is housed in the Irish constitution can be removed, replaced or surpassed by a vote in England on Brexit or on anything else.
The Good Friday agreement states very clearly that the question of Irish unity will be a matter for the people of Ireland, north and south, without external impediment. That key principle must be reflected in any new UK-EU treaty, making clear that if in the future Northern Ireland votes to become part of a united Ireland, it will do so as an automatic part of the EU, without any change in Ireland’s terms of membership and without the need for any new negotiations on the part of Northern Ireland. We cannot afford, in the Northern Ireland context, the sort of trickery that was used in the Scottish context to raise question marks over whether EU membership would apply. This is a key principle and tenet for those of us in the House who support the Good Friday agreement.
There are other risks to the agreement as well. There are risks to the weight of the rights in strand 1. There is also significant damage afoot in relation to strand 2, which involved a delicate balance of institutional and constitutional arrangements. That strand will be left in complete deficit after Brexit unless someone takes care of it.

Bob Neill: It is a pleasure, as always, to follow the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan). As a Unionist, I share his concern  about the need to ensure that whatever arrangements we make will protect and safeguard the Good Friday agreement, the position of Northern Ireland, and our relationships with the Republic. As Chairman of the Justice Committee, I also think it is important for us to take account of the position of the Crown dependencies, including the Isle of Man, which has a particular economic relationship with both Northern Ireland and the Republic.
It is no secret that I campaigned and voted to stay in the European Union, and I still believe that that would have been the better outcome. I regret the decision that the majority of the British people took. However, as a democrat, one must live with decisions that one may think were ill-advised. The majority decided otherwise, and we must respect their decision. For that reason, I have no problem with voting for the Government amendment, but neither would I have a problem with the Labour party’s original motion. Let me explain why.
It is perfectly reasonable and sensible to have a plan. Having made a decision, we now need to remove ourselves from the European Union in an orderly fashion, and that requires a high-level set of objectives. It certainly does not mean giving away every bit of the detail of our negotiating tactics on the day. I have complete faith in the ability of the Secretary of State and his team—especially given the Secretary of State’s business background—to handle those matters pragmatically, and pragmatism is, I think, the most important consideration. At the end of the day, the British people voted to leave the European Union, but they did not vote to do so on terms that would make them materially worse off. It is therefore critical that, whatever we achieve, we achieve it in a way that safeguards the economic interests of this country and its people, which I believe will be possible if we are cool-headed and sensible. That must always be the top priority.
It is also appropriate for us to get on with the job of triggering article 50, for the same reason. Both the plan and the move to invoke article 50 are necessary to deal with uncertainty. It is quite right that some of the worst economic predictions made in the referendum campaign have not come about, which is good news, but that is, of course, in part—not wholly—because of investment decisions taken before the referendum. Let us hope things continue that way but, as my old grandmother said, “Don’t always count your chickens until they’re hatched.”
What is crucial, however, is that we continue to have a stable climate for investment. In some areas that has been achieved, but in other sectors, particularly financial services and the property sector, there are clear instances of investment decisions being put on hold. The sooner we have clarity about the timeframe we are working to—hence we have the Government amendment—and a plan that we are working to, the better, as it will then be much easier to reassure business about those key points. I think that that is a perfectly sensible means of reconciling the original motion and the amendment.
The key things with which the plan needs to deal are financial services, legal certainty and, above all, our ability, if necessary, to have a sensible period of transition. The Prime Minister has hinted that we should not face a cliff edge. Our financial and legal services sectors are critical to this country’s economic wellbeing, and because of the complexity of the regulations we have to deal with and re-transpose into our own law, a transitional  period might well be needed. Ministers should not be afraid of that; if it is a necessary part of our achieving a practical outcome for this country, we should be happy to have it. We should also have confidence in proper scrutiny by this House of what is in the interests of our nation as a whole. As democrats, we can be optimistic about the future, but only if we are pragmatic and do not allow sloganising to get in the way of common sense in our negotiations.

Geraint Davies: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill).
I respect the vote in principle of the people to leave the EU, but they made that vote on three grounds: more money, market access and lower migration. What we are seeing, however, is that instead of getting £350 million to the NHS, it is going to cost us £300 million a week; instead of higher living standards, we have 5% inflation because of depreciation eating away at people’s incomes; and borrowing is going up, so everyone will be in debt with another £1,000 to pay back.

Kwasi Kwarteng: Is the hon. Gentleman essentially saying the people got it wrong on 23 June?

Geraint Davies: I am saying that people were misled, so basically now we are going to have another year of austerity.
On market access, everyone is talking about a hard Brexit. It is all very well Nissan, Tata and others being paid billions of pounds under the table to bribe them, to compensate for the tariffs they will inevitably face, but we will have to pay for that in the end, and we do not have proper market access.

Michael Gove: The hon. Gentleman has made the astonishing assertion that there have been under-the-table bribes to Tata, Nissan and others to continue to locate in the UK. What is his evidence for that assertion?

Geraint Davies: Clearly they have come to the Government and said, “The only reason we’re in this country is to platform into the EU market, and if we face tariffs we want the money back or we’re going to move,” and the Government have given them the money. I know the right hon. Gentleman knows nothing about economics and just criticises the Bank of England, but that is the simple business case.
As for the ridiculous arguments the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues put about on trade, what he wants to do is turn his back on 46% of our trade and somehow dream we can make up those relationships, which were always weaker than the EU negotiating new bilaterals. That is fantasy land.

Jim Cunningham: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Geraint Davies: I will not.
I do not think that people voted for Brexit—

Michael Gove: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Geraint Davies: No, I will not.
I do not think people voted for Brexit at any cost. In fact 75% of those who voted to leave have said they will not leave with a blank cheque and at any cost. The situation is that even though the majority voted in principle to leave, the mass of people—the silent majority—are now thinking twice. They do not want this decision made behind closed doors; they want to be able to have the final say. The silent majority want the final say on the final deal because they will live with the consequences.
A lot of rubbish has been talked about article 50 on both sides of this Chamber, but the reality is that as soon as we trigger it, that is literally giving back our membership of the EU. We then have no negotiating power, and the other 27 countries will decide in their own interests what deal we have. The Members on both sides of the House who want a referendum after we trigger article 50 must realise that if we have a referendum or a vote here and say we do not like the deal, the EU 27 nations will say, “Tough; that’s the one that suits us. It stops others leaving. Live with it and shut up.” That is a constitutional fact, and it is the primary reason why I cannot support the amendment that calls on the Government to invoke article 50 by 31 March. After that date, we will have no negotiating power. What is more, there is an election in France in May, and an election in Germany in October, so that time would be wasted even if negotiations were going on because the two biggest power players would not be able to engage with us as they will be focusing on their domestic audiences. Article 50 should therefore certainly not be triggered until November next year at the earliest.

Sammy Wilson: Is the logic of the hon. Gentleman’s argument that we might as well never trigger article 50 because we will have given away all our negotiating powers, regardless of when it is triggered?

Geraint Davies: I introduced a Bill on the terms of our withdrawal from the EU. It stated that after the emergence of the situation in which we now find ourselves had become apparent, the British people should have the final say on the deal before article 50 was triggered. The EU would then have an incentive to negotiate with us, because it would know that our default position was to stay in the EU. At the moment, it has no such incentive.
The reason the Government are keeping their cards close to their chest is that there is nothing on those cards, because none of the 27 EU countries will speak to the Government. They are just saying, “You’re leaving—get out! Trigger article 50, get on with it, and we’ll tell you what you’re getting.” People are buying that up and thinking that it is in the British interest, which it clearly is not. I appreciate that the Government’s game is to rush forward with article 50 before March, to take two weeks to repeal the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011, to rush towards a May election and then to have the appalling Budget that they will have delayed from March in the autumn. They would then say, “Oh, what could we do? We didn’t realise there was going to be a downturn.” Then all the money going to Nissan and Tata and the others under the table would be revealed. But the British people will not buy that—

Simon Hoare: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies) has now twice implied that the Government are making, or that private companies operating in this country are taking, under-the-table cash payments in contravention of all the corporate regulations and anti-corruption legislation. Could you invite him to reconsider and perhaps recast his argument?

Eleanor Laing: As the hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) knows, the content of an hon. Member’s speech is not a matter for me. However, it would be a matter for me if the hon. Member for Swansea West said something in the course of his speech that implied wrongdoing on the part of any other Member or member of the Government. I am sure that he will confirm, as I call him to recommence his speech, that he did not mean to say anything of the kind.

Geraint Davies: There was certainly no wrongdoing. What I was suggesting is that huge amounts of public money are being pushed towards foreign companies to get them to stay here, and that the Government have pointedly refused to tell the Office for Budget Responsibility, when asked, how much money was involved so that the OBR could factor it into its forecasts. The Government have refused to give those figures. These are enormous amounts of money; we are talking about hundreds of millions of pounds, which would affect our economic forecasts. The Government refuse to give the figures now, but they will come out after everything has been decided and article 50 has been triggered in March, when there is no room for reversal. The British public deserve and want either a good deal or no deal, and the right to decide that question. This should not be decided behind closed doors. We need to delay article 50 until November to allow the people to decide their own future.

Lucy Frazer: In a debate with much intense feeling, I would like to highlight the fact that there are some areas of common ground. First, there is acceptance across the House that there needs to be, and will be, parliamentary scrutiny. Secondly, and importantly, it has been accepted on both sides of the House that parliamentary scrutiny should not trump achieving the best deal for our country. In this debate and in the many that will follow, we must never forget that second point. Our overriding concern must be to get the right long-term arrangement for our country’s future.
I will outline the steps to which the Government have already agreed. This House has already resolved that there will be parliamentary scrutiny. In a motion agreed to by both sides of the House on 12 October, this House resolved that there would be
“a full and transparent debate on the Government’s plan”
and that the House should properly
“scrutinise that plan for leaving the EU before Article 50 is invoked”.
The Secretary of State confirmed in that debate a commitment that
“Parliament be kept at least as informed as, and better informed than, the European Parliament”—[Official Report, 12 October 2016; Vol. 615, c. 332.]
in circumstances where there is a mandatory obligation to inform the European Parliament. Through her amendment, the Prime Minister has now agreed to publish a plan, and the Secretary of State said today that it is inconceivable that there will not be a vote on the final deal. It therefore follows that there is already an agreed level of parliamentary scrutiny, but we must strike the right balance between parliamentary scrutiny and ensuring that we maintain the best negotiating stance.

Alex Chalk: I was a remainer, too, and I welcome the fact that a statement of the broad parameters of the British negotiating position will be made clear, but does my hon. and learned Friend agree that we should never allow any demands for excessive granularity to undermine the UK’s negotiating position or the national interest?

Lucy Frazer: I absolutely agree. It is vital that we get the best deal—not that we have the power to determine the deal at every stage.
The Opposition have accepted at many stages that we must not tie the Government’s hands. In the October motion, it was accepted across the House that the process must
“not undermine the negotiating position of the Government as negotiations are entered into”.
The shadow Secretary of State stated in the course of that debate that
“navigating our exit from the EU will not be an easy process, and it will require shrewd negotiating”
and that we
“must put the national interest first”.—[Official Report, 12 October 2016; Vol. 615, c. 323.]
He accepted that there had to be a degree of confidentiality and flexibility. He repeated those very words today. Those statements, which the Opposition have repeatedly made, must be honoured and remembered, because we made some strategic errors when we first negotiated in Europe.
To the Spaak Committee meetings of 1955 that eventuated in the treaty of Rome, we sent a sole British delegate, a minor trade official called Russell Bretherton. He was eventually summoned home on the grounds that Britain should have no part in what a more senior civil servant described as this
“mysticism which appeals to European… federalists”.
Interviewed in later life about the experience, Bretherton said:
“If we had been able to say that we agreed in principle, we could have got whatever kind of common market we wanted. I have no doubt of that at all.”
Now, we have an opportunity to renegotiate our role in Europe and the rest of the world. I do not want to say to my children that we did not get the best deal because of our fear, our scepticism, our adversarial parliamentary system, political point scoring and, possibly, ulterior political motives. I do not want to say that we restricted ourselves in negotiating the right arrangement for our long-term future.

Caroline Lucas: I welcome the motion tabled by the official Opposition and I had been planning to vote to support it. However, their adoption of the Government amendment changes things in two key ways. I regret that the Labour leadership appears to be walking into the Tories’ trap: they are insisting that, in return for accepting Labour’s motion, it votes to invoke article 50 by March. Introducing such a tight timetable, based on an arbitrary deadline, undermines the principle that this is about getting the best possible deal for Britain. That is particularly pertinent given that serious negotiations will inevitably not start until autumn next year—after French and German elections. We will therefore effectively lose about six months if we stick to the timetable set out in the amendment.
To say the Labour strategy of pushing the Government to produce a plan worthy of the name by the end of January—in effect only four to six weeks away—is ambitious would be to take understatement to new levels. Any plan needs to be more than a summary of the banalities that the Government have been repeating until now about the so-called “best possible deal.” We should have been demanding a full-blown White Paper. That is why I cannot support the Government-amended motion, which threatens to throw Britain off the Brexit cliff edge, with a vague plan at best and within a timeframe that simply is not compatible with developing any sort of coherent strategy.

Kirsty Blackman: Does the hon. Lady agree that some things we are voting on tonight totally disregard respect for the devolved Administrations?

Caroline Lucas: I absolutely agree with the hon. Lady’s point about the devolved Administrations. Her party has put it clearly on the record and I am grateful for that.
I want to tackle head on the accusation that voting against this amended motion, or even being prepared to vote against triggering article 50, equates to disregarding the will of the British people. This is not about challenging the result of the referendum, which of course I accept, but it is about saying that we need to know what kind of Brexit the Government are planning to negotiate. As many others have said, it is not about the issue of departure, but about destination. We are no clearer about that now than we were three or four hours earlier. That is why I believe it would be irresponsible to vote to throw the country into the potential nightmare of leaving the EU within two years without knowing what might be in the plan and what kind of plan it is. To do so without any solid proposals for an interim deal after two years of negotiation would be particularly reckless.
Turning to the content of the negotiating position, I wish specifically to argue for an outcome that maintains strong social and environmental regulation, and free movement and membership of the single market, because I believe that that is what is best for Britain and for my constituency in Brighton, where so many businesses and the two universities have been talking to me about the uncertainty they believe is being engendered by the current proposals. On the environment, the referendum was not a mandate to weaken our standards on air, water or wildlife. A poll in August found that 83% of  the public think that laws protecting wildlife should remain as strong as they are now or be made tougher following our departure from the EU. The environment must not, in any way, be the price we pay for any deal struck with the EU over membership of the single market. In the Environmental Audit Committee last month, the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs suggested that about a third of EU environment legislation will not be carried over. That is wholly unacceptable and indicates that the Government are not prepared to fight for the UK to remain part of EU-wide action on tackling climate change, on reducing the use of dangerous chemicals or on animal welfare standards. Any plan must set out how the Prime Minister intends to reflect the cross-border nature of the environmental challenges.

Geraint Davies: Is the hon. Lady as concerned as I am that 40,000 people a year are dying of diesel pollution in Britain and we may get rid of the EU monitoring standards?

John Bercow: Order. May I just point out to the hon. Gentleman that he has just spoken and he is going to prevent other people from speaking, which is discourteous?

Caroline Lucas: Thank you, Mr Speaker. In broad terms, I agree with the point the hon. Gentleman is making about air pollution, because the EU is providing the best bulwark against the reduction of air pollution standards in this country.
Let me move on to talk about freedom of movement, as, sadly, few MPs seem prepared to defend it any longer. It is especially sad and worrying that the leadership of the official Opposition are in danger of ceding the terms of this debate to the right. I readily accept that it is easy to blame free movement when the benefits have been enjoyed so unevenly. There are people in my city of Brighton and Hove who have not visited Brighton seafront because they cannot afford to get there. For them, the idea of being able to live, work or study in another country is about as likely as travelling to the moon, but that reality does not justify denying them the right to free movement in the future. On the contrary, it should mean fighting tooth and nail for a Europe of equals, in which the hard-won rights enshrined in EU law do not just exist in the statute books as perks for the privileged, but are genuinely available to all EU citizens. We should have, and we deserve to have, successful policies to redistribute wealth fairly and to create real opportunities for all.
There is an enormous task ahead of us to reunite our country, and it will be made all the more difficult by further economic hardship of the kind that we will have with a hard Brexit which does not have us as part of the single market and does not have free movement. So we absolutely need to know what the plan is going to look like. The justifiable anger and mistrust felt by those who voted leave will only deepen if the many promises made turn out not even to be worth the red bus they were written on. We need to be honest about how people are feeling and why they feel the way they do. We do not need blindly to follow the damaging, blame-laden rhetoric that is being used to distract from the failure of neo-liberal economics to provide the basic needs of all members of our society. Immigration has been systematically and  cynically scapegoated for everything, when in fact what is at the heart of this is decades of not investing in our public services. That is what—

John Bercow: Order. Matt Warman is the next speaker. We have eight would-be contributors and I would like to accommodate them all, so the time limit will have to be reduced, with immediate effect, to three minutes. Colleagues are absolutely welcome to intervene on each other, but if they do, somebody will not get in.

Matt Warman: Over the past few days, Mr Speaker, I have not seen as much of you as I might have liked, partly because I have had the privilege of being up in my own constituency and partly because I have been in the neighbouring seat of Sleaford and North Hykeham. Until that seat is represented again in this place—I very much hope that the excellent Conservative candidate, Caroline Johnson, will have that privilege—I hope that you will permit me to report what is being said on the doorsteps of Lincolnshire. Whether it is in Boston, where 77% voted to leave the EU, or in Branston, which is in Sleaford and North Hykeham, where 62% did so, there is a single line that honest, decent voters use again and again: they doubt that the Government will deliver on their word and trigger article 50 by the end of March. They say firmly that the Prime Minister is the right person to do it, but the Lincolnshire public doubt that politicians in the House are on their side.
I hope that, through this debate, the message goes back loud and clear, both to Boston and Skegness and to Sleaford and North Hykeham, that Parliament will not seek to set the Government up to deliver anything other than the best possible deal for the UK by asking them to put all their cards on the table, and that we will trigger article 50 by the end of March. We on the Conservative Benches know that that is the right thing to do, and Members on other Benches or those in the Supreme Court seeking to make a different case should accept that to take another view is to go further than questioning Brexit: it is playing with the fundamental principle of democracy that the people must decide.
Some remainers say that that is not what they seek to do, but I would say this to them, in line with what the people of Lincolnshire have been saying to me. The argument that was lost in June was not lost in six weeks. It was lost over years and decades. We in the House govern with the consent of the people. To maintain that consent all of us must bear in mind the fact that we laid out a case in June. Now we must make sure, unused as some of us are to doing so, that we do as we are told. Not doing so risks far more than our relationship with Europe.

Adrian Bailey: I support the motion and, after some consideration, the Government amendment. I am prepared to support the Government amendment because it refers to the motion agreed on 12 October, which called on the Prime Minister
“to ensure that this House is able properly to scrutinise that plan for leaving the EU before Article 50 is invoked”.
I make it clear that, while accepting 31 March 2017 as the deadline for invoking article 50, my support for that action is contingent on being satisfied that the first part of the provision has been satisfactorily implemented. I will reserve my view until that date and until such time as I have had the opportunity to make a judgment. I assume that proper scrutiny and debate imply an attempt to get some sort of consensus and the capacity of the Opposition to make amendments, along with a genuine attempt to arrive at a position that commands the full support of Members on both sides of the House. I stress to the Government that their position when negotiating with the EU will be improved immeasurably if they can secure that degree of unity.
Another reason for supporting the amendment is that we must end uncertainty. It locks the Government into an obligation to put plans before the House by early January that will at least begin to address some of the issues that we are being asked about on the doorstep and which, to date, have not been dealt with by the Government. Genuine questions about our future—key issues that affect local industries, the aspirations of local people, jobs, civil liberties and so on—have been met hitherto by “Brexit means Brexit” and other vacuous phrases that do not address people’s genuine concerns, such as
“red, white and blue Brexit”
or, if the Chancellor has his way, grey Brexit.
To continue the colour metaphor, I see this as forcing the Government to nail their colours to the mast and to start to bring before the House some genuine proposals in response to the genuine questions that are being asked—questions such as those that local businessmen ask me: “Will we be part of a single market?” They need to know before investing: “Will we be able to recruit labour in order to meet the additional demand incurred by being in the single market?” Still no answer from the Government. We need an answer. Until this is done, I will not give that support—

Richard Drax: It is a pleasure to take part in this debate. I have two minutes and 58 seconds to say an awful lot.
The vote offered to the British people on 23 June came with no ifs, no buts and no conditions. The then Prime Minister, David Cameron, who gave us that wonderful referendum, for which I am eternally grateful, spent £9 million of taxpayers’ money to tell us that in the literature that came through our doors. There were no ifs, no buts, no conditions. I recall him saying, whichever side wins, even by one single vote, the will of the people will be respected. It could not be simpler.
I believe my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke), who has retaken his seat, implied that not all the British people understood what they were voting for. That is what I understood from his speech. If I am wrong, I apologise, but if I am right, may I tell him that he is wrong?

Kenneth Clarke: I do not think either side should resort to attacking the voters on the other side. I did say that I thought very few of them were expressing an opinion one way or the other on whether they should remain in the customs union and under what conditions.  They agreed that they were going to leave the EU; what they were going to do instead was not even discussed during the referendum.

Richard Drax: That is where I must disagree with my right hon. and learned Friend. Leaving the EU, as we have heard from many Members on the Government Benches, means leaving everything to do with the EU. It could not be clearer.
I met a lady outside the polling booth on 23 June on Portland, who was holding on to her husband, who was not particularly well. She said to me, “Richard, I’m going to vote with you. I’m going to vote to leave.” I asked her, “Why are you voting to leave?” She looked me straight in the eye and said, “Richard, because I want my country back. I want control of our laws, I want control of our borders, I want our rules and regulations made by people in our Parliament and nowhere else. And if you make a mess, we the electorate can kick you out.” She understood. My electorate understood, I believe, exactly what the referendum was about.
The issue of triggering article 50 is a fig leaf being used by those who wish to postpone at best, or at worst even prevent, exit from the EU. Let me explain why. Triggering article 50 involves no legislative activity. There is nothing, in my view, to discuss. It simply begins the two-year period within which negotiations can start. The British people voted to leave the EU. The only way we can do that is to trigger article 50. It is as simple as that.
We hear right across the House this afternoon uncertainty. Yes, because people are prevaricating against the will of the British people. That is what is causing the uncertainty across our land. Sitting on the European Scrutiny Committee under the admirable chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash), I have seen all the legislation that continues to sweep through into this country, and it is time we took back control. Of that I have no doubt. Once article 50 has been triggered, the uncertainty will go. I tell you why: in the EU, the one thing those unelected bureaucrats do not like and do not understand is a firm no. That is when they start to negotiate. I, for one, am glad that we will be in control at last of the future of our great country.

David Lammy: I congratulate my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) on forcing the Government to concede ground in committing to publish a plan for leaving the EU before they invoke article 50. However, he will have seen from the debate that it is not at all clear what that means. Does it mean the Government are just going to publish a document saying, “We will seek the best possible Brexit and aim for the best possible access to the single market”? If it does, I am afraid we are not clear at all what we are going to get and what the plan is.
We have had a lot of discussion about whether there should be a White Paper, but we have had no commitment from the Government that we will get one. Will it answer specific points about the Government’s priorities? Will it set out their position on single market membership,  free movement, security co-operation with our allies, workers’ rights, consumer protections or environmental protections? Will it set out all the red lines? Will it set out the Government’s position on the customs union? We are not clear yet what the plan will be. It is for that reason that I will certainly not be voting for the motion as it stands.
It is also clear, despite what my hon. and learned Friend said about the need for those in this House to accept the referendum decision and not seek to frustrate the Government—I understand why he said that—that the Government’s amendment (a) makes a commitment to 31 March. That timetable was set by the Prime Minister behind closed doors, with no input from Parliament at all. That is the second reason why I will not be able to support the motion.
A lack of clarity will not help us to get a good deal; in fact, it will do exactly the opposite, and that is the most important point that, I hope, has come across from today’s debate. The absence of any detail about the Government’s plans has created a vacuum, which has been filled by speculation and by hard Brexiteers. However, words have consequences: proposals to force companies to draw up registers of EU workers; threats to crack down on European students; plans to replace European doctors and nurses working in our NHS; refusing to guarantee the rights of EU citizens who reside in the UK; and doing so much to offend our partners in Europe—described as enemies in this House—with whom we have to negotiate.
I represent a constituency that has had two riots in a generation. I represent a constituency that will bear the brunt when we exercise article 50 and, no doubt, the economy turns down as a result. Those OBR forecasts have a bearing on my constituents. I regret that I have had only three minutes to make their case since the referendum decision on 23 June. However, for all the reasons I have outlined, I will not be supporting the motion.

David Davies: Whether people like it or not, the referendum result gave the Government a very clear mandate to get Britain out of the European Union. It is extremely disappointing that some people are trying to frustrate the will of the people, whether it is hedge fund managers, with their money, taking cases to the High Court; Members of this House coming up with all sorts of reasons as to why they may not vote for article 50; or, closer to home for me, Members of the Welsh Assembly, who now seek to parley on equal terms with Ministers and to dictate to them the terms of our withdrawal from the European Union.
I know that Ministers will be polite to Welsh Assembly Ministers, but I hope they will remind them that they owe their existence to a referendum that had a much smaller turnout and a much narrower majority than the one that has delivered us the mandate for Brexit. I hope they will remind them that the people of Wales voted to leave the European Union, and that the Welsh Labour party is not speaking for Wales when it comes to meet Ministers. I hope they will also remind Welsh Assembly Ministers from the Labour party that foreign affairs is not within their remit, and if they seek to come here and talk about foreign affairs, maybe it is time Welsh Members  of Parliament were able to discuss Welsh Labour’s appalling record on the national health service and on education; as the programme for international student assessment results have shown, Labour has left us at the absolute bottom of the educational league.
We have an absolutely first-rate Prime Minister who has the support of her Members of Parliament, and a first-rate set of Ministers. We cannot possibly have a negotiation that consists of 650 MPs, 800 or so Members of the House of Lords and a coven of Welsh Assembly Ministers. As John Major himself said, we need to unbind the hands of our Ministers and allow them to get out there into Brussels and negotiate the excellent deal that we know they can get, which will involve freedom of movement, freedom to trade, and freedom to get back control of our borders and money. We look forward to celebrating that deal over the next two years. I am very proud to support my Government tonight.

Danny Kinahan: I am intrigued to follow the hon. Member for Monmouth (David T. C. Davies), but I would hope that everyone is willing to listen to everyone else, whether the devolved Governments or anyone else within the United Kingdom who wishes to have a say. I am pleased to be here to put some points from the Ulster Unionist party.
The people have spoken. We must listen to the people and we must do what they have said. They have asked us to leave the European Union, so we must support the triggering of article 50. I campaigned to stay in; my constituency voted—just—to leave; my little bit of the United Kingdom that I adore so much, Northern Ireland, voted to stay in; and the whole Union that I am so passionate about voted to leave. I am therefore left in the middle of everything wondering which way to go.
When I heard someone talking about “red, white and blue”, I thought, “That’s lovely—that’s great.” Then I thought, “No it isn’t—we’ve got to include how we trade with Ireland, Northern Ireland’s neighbour.” This is a phenomenally complicated step forward. We have to sort out the border. We have to look after our farmers. We have to look after our universities. There is so much at stake, and yet—

Margaret Ritchie: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is important that the Government are respectful of all political traditions in these islands and take those points of view on board?

Danny Kinahan: I thank the hon. Lady; I could not agree more. That is exactly what I was leading up to. When we talk about red, white and blue, I want to see a big bit of green and orange. I want to see us looking after the trade with Ireland, east-west and north-south, and looking after the people in Northern Ireland who have a different point of view. I also want an end to the post-truth politics that we have all seen worldwide. I want us to be back at a point where the public can trust us and look to the integrity of politicians.
Today we are talking about whether Parliament should be scrutinising this. Of course it should. I am assuming that the Government will come back to us when they have the right things to bring back for us to scrutinise. I trust them, just as much as I trust the rest of the  Opposition to make sure that they take part as well. We have all got to start working together. I want the rest of the world to see the United Kingdom united.
I hope that all Members will listen to Northern Ireland’s case. I welcome Ministers coming over to Northern Ireland and listening to us, and thank them for doing that so often when we are such a small part of the United Kingdom. I ask them to keep coming and keep listening to us. Let us all work together. My party put together the document I have here, “A Vision for Northern Ireland outside the EU”, which contains some constructive points. Everyone should be doing that. This is a time to listen and to be flexible, with everyone working together.
Something that came over to me throughout the whole of the Brexit debate was an anti-establishment mood. This is not necessarily about which side people are on; it is that we are all failing as politicians. It is about whether the pothole in the road is being repaired, and so on. People are not getting the service they want quickly. I am keen that we all pull together.

Neil Carmichael: As the Order Paper states very clearly, this debate is about the Government’s plan for Brexit, and absolutely rightly so, because we need to separate process from direction and outcomes. That is central to this debate, and many speakers have touched on it. As we have heard, if we are obsessed with process, we end up threatening our own constitution. This Parliament should be the place where big decisions are made and the place that sets the direction of travel. That is partly why I will support the motion: it includes the word “plan” and therefore, in effect, commits the Government to having a plan.
What should that plan be talking about? It has to talk about outcomes. This is not about tying the hands of negotiators, but setting out outcomes and directions of travel to get there. It is like a road map: there will be junctions and roundabouts. It is not about delaying anything or obstructing anything. It is about setting the terms that will provide the best outcomes for this country. We need a White Paper on trade. We need to understand the options and see where the Government’s thinking is going, and we need to think about transitional arrangements if they are necessary for sectors such as financial services.
We must have a sensible debate about the information and our understanding of the issues. If we think that this is about sovereignty and nothing else, imagine what will happen if we start signing free trade agreements with other nation states. Any free trade agreement is a contract that involves making commitments to another nation, and that is about sovereignty. It is not simply a question of whether we are in the European Union; it is about how we conduct ourselves across the globe.
A related issue is the signal that we send out to our 27 existing partners and to the rest of the world. We are in danger of thinking of the debate as entirely domestic, but it is not, because everything that we say and do is interpreted by a lot of other key players. We need to say to them, through our debates, statements, White Papers and so on, that we have a level-headed and determined plan to make the very best of Brexit within the time that we have been given.

Tulip Siddiq: I voted to remain in the European Union, as did 75% of my constituents, so it is not surprising that my inbox has been filled with questions about access to the single market, customs union, immigration, the environment and workplace protections. Perhaps the most pressing issue, which has come up over and over again, is the protection of EU nationals. Forty-six per cent. of my constituents were born offshore, and they have emailed me constantly asking about their future.
Anne, who lives in Hampstead and has done for 40 years, keeps asking me what will happen to her. Will she have to relocate? Can she live in the country that she has called her home, where she raised her family, where she got married and where she is a community member and part of the local school, or will she have to relocate? Unfortunately, I cannot give her the answers, because the Government’s plans have been shrouded in secrecy from the very beginning. I applaud my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) for forcing the Government to say that they will publish plans and let us know what they are doing, but it is far too little, far too late. The Government should have done that a long time ago.
This is not simply a moral issue; we have to think about the benefits to our economy. Figures from the Office for National Statistics show that EU immigrants to Britain are significantly younger than the national average and more likely to be in work. In Camden, which forms part of my constituency, 13% of employed residents hold an EU passport. The Government need to acknowledge not simply the moral issue about using people as bargaining chips, but the significant impact that there will be on our local economy if we do not secure the future of the people who hold EU passports and live in this country. The proportion of people in my constituency who hold EU passports rises to 17% in professional, scientific and technical industries. The figure is 14% in financial and insurance services and 10% in information and communications.
I know I do not have much time, so I call on the Government and the Prime Minister to do a few things. Immediately try to secure the future of EU nationals who live in this country, and who consider this country to be their home. Do not pander to the people who treated the EU referendum as a proxy vote on immigration. Stop trying to chase failed migration targets. That has not worked in the past, and it is not going to happen now. I call on the Government, the Prime Minister and Members of the House to secure the future of EU nationals living in my constituency and across the country, and to put their uncertainties to rest.

Kwasi Kwarteng: I am very grateful to you, Mr Speaker—you have managed our debate—for allowing me to speak, because we have had lots of interventions.
I want to say a few things about this debate. First, nothing could have been clearer than the vote on 23 June. It was the largest vote that has ever taken place in the history of our country, and 17.4 million people—a larger mandate than any ever given to any Prime Minister on any issue—voted to leave the EU. We all know that the one way we can leave the EU—in fact, the only way  we can effect the will of the people—is by triggering article 50. It therefore stands to reason that any attempt to delay, frustrate or obstruct the triggering of article 50 is simply to delay and obstruct the will of the people as expressed on 23 June 2016. That is self-evident to any person who cares to think about these things.
The second point is about having a plan. To me, nothing could be clearer than the Government’s position. We have said this many times. [Interruption.] Labour Members find that very amusing. I am glad to see that they find clarity amusing, because they would benefit from some clarity. The Government’s position is very simple: we want to have some restriction on freedom of movement—we want a change in the arrangements—while having the widest possible access to the single market. Those are two very simple principles. [Interruption.] Various Labour Front Benchers are chuntering from their places, but even they should be able to understand that basic position.
The third point is that our friends in the Labour party have got themselves into an awful mess on this particular issue. On the one hand, the people for whom the Labour party was created in the north and the midlands voted overwhelmingly for out, yet the current leaders of the party—the intellectual establishment and many of the Front Benchers—are based in London, and we all know that London’s view on the outcome of the referendum was very different from the view in the traditional heartlands. The two ends of the pantomime cow are pulling apart now, and—to change my metaphors—it is very difficult to see how Humpty Dumpty can be put back together again. This is obviously causing them massive pain, but I hope that they will support the Government amendment and I look forward to seeing many of them in the Lobby in a few minutes’ time.

Michael Gove: My hon. Friend is a distinguished historian. Is there any precedent for the fact that the Conservative party is now a more effective representative of the views of working-class Britain than the Labour party?

Kwasi Kwarteng: There is no precedent for this. One Labour resident of Islington—a friend of mine—said to me, “The one way for the Labour party to commit suicide would be to oppose the triggering of article 50.” That is palpable, and it would be a much shorter version of Labour’s suicide note in the 1983 general election.
We must very clearly say that a lot of the words we have heard are game-playing. Labour Members say they respect the will of the people, but we know that they have no intention of doing so. We know that many of them want to frustrate the will of the people as expressed in June. We know that all this obfuscation, all this delay, all the smokescreen and the dust in the eyes—all that sort of thing—is for one end and one end only: they want to stay in the EU at all costs. I say to them very plainly that the horse has bolted and that the ship has left. We are not going back into the EU, and the sooner they accept that very basic proposition, the better it will be for their constituents and for the country as a whole.

Jenny Chapman: For the benefit of the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Kwasi Kwarteng),  I just want to say that the Labour party was created for people living everywhere, not just those living in the north.
In his opening remarks, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) said that he wanted to see a plan “not for the 52% or the 48% but for the 100%...in the national interest.” I am glad that the Government now agree with him. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley (Mr Howarth) said, there is no mandate for what is known as hard Brexit, and there is no consensus for hard Brexit. He said that how we leave is an “urgent matter of…policy that should be…debated” and decided in this House.
The right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) gave a clear description of how the process might work, saying: “I do not think that scrutiny and debate are a threat”. As an example of how not to do it, the Secretary of State referred to several options regarding the customs union. He said that the Government would decide whether the UK remains part of the customs union and that he would inform the House. That is not sufficient. This House must see the plan. The Government need to publish it in January so that, on issues such as membership of the customs union, that plan can be tested, debated and, if necessary, amended. That is what taking back control means. The Government are going to have to get used to it.
With control comes accountability. The Government will no longer be able to hide behind the excuse that the EU made them do something or they would have loved to intervene but the EU stopped them. The Government will need to account for their own decisions, and that starts with their Brexit plan. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) said, the plan should examine whether we remain in the single market and the customs union, the impact on our constituents, and the vision on immigration, on climate and energy, and on crime and terrorism. My hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq) would add to that the question of the status of EU nationals. The Government cannot take the country with them if they will not tell it where they plan to go.
The charge against those of us who have proposed Labour’s motion is that we are all remoaners who are using parliamentary tricks to obstruct the progress of Britain’s departure from the EU. Even though the Government have now accepted our motion, we are accused of asking them to reveal too much, or of endangering their prospects of securing the best outcome. We have been told that there will be no running commentary. In her—as ever—excellent speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham East (Heidi Alexander) said that we need basic answers to basic questions. She raised questions that are uncomfortable for some, but that must be answered, and I applaud her for that.
We accept the outcome of the referendum, and, for the benefit of the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg), we respect that outcome. But this is not a game; this is serious. The future of the United Kingdom is in the balance. This is the greatest challenge for politicians of our generation, and the Government should not be surprised when responsible MPs, such as my hon. Friends the Members for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith) and for West Bromwich West (Mr Bailey) show an intense interest in and concern about how Brexit proceeds. Our constituents have set us  on the course we must now follow. We, as their representatives, must ensure that their voices are heard throughout the process.

Jim Cunningham: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Jenny Chapman: I will, but only once, as I am trying to wind up a six-hour debate in a very small amount of time.

Jim Cunningham: My hon. Friend referred to our hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich West (Mr Bailey). One of the big issues in the midlands is regional aid. How will that be replaced? That is the sort of answer we want from the Government.

Jenny Chapman: Precisely.
We must know more than we do about the Government’s intentions. Surely, on the most important issue facing this country, that is not too much to ask. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden) put it well: being clear about our objectives does not weaken us; it strengthens us. It is not just MPs who campaigned for remain who want more information; the British public, including those who voted to leave, want to know more about the plan. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) and the hon. Member for South Antrim (Danny Kinahan) said, this is not leave versus remain; it is Parliament doing its job. Take back control, we were told. This House will have done everything possible after this evening to assure the public that we will not block article 50. We now need to gain some grip on the process. We need to see the plan. If the plan presented is insufficient, we will come back and demand more.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster Central (Dame Rosie Winterton) urged the Government to include a regional analysis in their plan. I wholeheartedly echo that demand. The Government say they do not want to reveal their negotiating stance before they have to and that they do not want a running commentary, but the trouble is that a running commentary is exactly what we are getting. We and our constituents are gleaning clues about the Government’s intentions from leaked correspondence, snatched glimpses of notes and the musings of the Foreign Secretary. This is unhelpful in enabling challenge, scrutiny and contributions from MPs. It is also damaging our prospects for gaining a good outcome. It is not just the British public who are listening to the running commentary; it is being heard with some irritation by officials and parliamentarians in Europe.

Michael Gove: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Jenny Chapman: I will not give way.
There has been a vacuum, an empty space where the plan ought to be. As the right hon. Member for Loughborough (Nicky Morgan) said, it is not good enough that acceptance of the need for a plan has been dragged out of the Government by the Opposition. I look forward, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire) said, to the debate moving on to the substance of Brexit, rather than the relentless focus on process.
The motion asks for the basic plan, not the fine detail. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bury South (Mr Lewis) said, the “we know best” politics has to end. He and my right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) warned of the consequences of failing to talk frankly about immigration. It leads to the rise of the far right, and that cannot be allowed to happen. I congratulate them both on their speeches.
It would be profoundly wrong if Members of the European Parliament and officials in Brussels were the first to learn of the Government’s stance. If the British public had to read about the Government’s position through leaks from Brussels, it would be a most inauspicious start to the taking back of control that our constituents have told us they want.
The right hon. Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry), who has gained admirers on all sides, says she wants a White Paper and a Bill. I hope the Minister is listening to her.

Michael Gove: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Jenny Chapman: I have told the right hon. Gentleman that I will not give way.
We all know that there are those who want the hardest and fastest Brexit possible. Conversely, some MPs such as my right hon. Friends the Members for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw) and for Tottenham (Mr Lammy), and my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies), will vote against the Government amendment. They are not Brexit deniers; they are people with genuine concerns. The Government would do well to listen to them, because that is what building consensus means.

Robin Walker: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Darlington (Jenny Chapman). I thank Members who have contributed to this excellent debate on what the motion rightly describes as the defining issue facing the United Kingdom. There have been many excellent contributions on both sides. Time will not allow me to congratulate all those who have spoken, but I should say that, as a new Minister, to follow the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn), my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke), my right hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove) and the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) is a privilege in any debate, but especially in a debate in which it was revealed that my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) voted to join the European Community in 1975.
Hon. Members on both sides of the House have raised important and pressing issues. My right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr Duncan Smith) and my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) called for pace, but the Government are getting on with the job of delivering on the mandate given by the British people. We are taking our time to get the detail right. As many Members have remarked, this is not necessarily a simple  or straightforward set of decisions. Getting our approach right first time is vital to our long-term national interest. As the right hon. Member for Leeds Central and my right hon. Friends the Members for Loughborough (Nicky Morgan) and for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry) said, we should show respect for the enormity of this issue and its impact on all our constituents.
Members have shown that they share our concern that we prepare properly and focus on the details. Following the referendum, we are moving on from  40 years of EU membership. Carrying out this process properly and effectively is a complex challenge with a wide range of potential outcomes. That is why we are taking our time to inform and develop our negotiating strategy.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State set out before the House four aims: first, listening to all sides in the debate so that we can build a national consensus around our position and get the best deal for the UK; secondly, putting the national interest first and listening carefully to all the devolved Administrations; thirdly, taking steps to minimise uncertainty wherever possible, which is why we are bringing forward a great repeal Bill to bring existing EU law into domestic law on the day we leave, and empowering Parliament to make the changes necessary to ensure our law operates effectively at the domestic level; and, finally, putting the sovereignty and supremacy of this Parliament beyond doubt by the time we end this process and have left the European Union.
My right hon. Friend has also been clear about our broad strategic aims for the negotiations: securing the best available access for our businesses so that they can trade and operate within the single market, while taking back control of our borders, our laws and our money. I hear calls from both sides of the House—and indeed both sides of the referendum debate—for the rights of EU citizens in the UK to be guaranteed, and it is certainly the Government’s intention to do so, alongside securing the rights of UK citizens living in the EU.
In preparation for the negotiations, we are undertaking a wide-ranging programme of sectoral and regulatory analysis, talking to businesses and civil society about the options for leaving the EU and the impact on their parts of the economy. On Monday, my right hon. Friend joined the Chancellor to meet organisations in the City. From aerospace to the environment, energy to retail, farming to chemicals, tourism to automotive, fishing to fintech, and universities to ports, we have been listening to people’s concerns and seeking out opportunities for UK industries.
From the start, the Prime Minister has been committed to full engagement with the devolved Administrations in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. I commend the hon. Member for South Antrim (Danny Kinahan) for his powerful speech on the importance of finding a UK approach and of listening to the concerns of the devolved Administrations. I undertake to do that. Others, including my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill), mentioned the Crown dependencies. I can assure them that a great deal of engagement is going on with the Crown dependencies, as it is with Gibraltar. I met representatives of the Government of Gibraltar today to make sure we were taking their concerns on board in our preparations for this process.
The motion passed by the House on 12 October made it clear that while parliamentary scrutiny was an essential pillar in the process of our withdrawal, it should be carried out in a way that respected the will of the people and did not restrict the Government’s negotiating capability. Parliamentary scrutiny is invaluable, and it is important that our approach is scrutinised by the expertise of both Houses of Parliament, but that cannot be, as my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin) pointed out so clearly, at the expense of binding the Government’s hands in negotiations. It is entirely proper that Parliament should scrutinise the Government’s approach to the process of leaving the EU, and that there be a full and continuing debate, both on the Floor of the House and in the new Select Committee on Exiting the European Union, chaired by the right hon. Member for Leeds Central, which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will be attending next week.
Many hon. Members, including those the Opposition Benches—notably the right hon. Members for Doncaster North and for Doncaster Central (Dame Rosie Winterton)—have recognised that it is beyond doubt that the Government have received clear instructions from the British people that Britain should leave the EU. We are now discussing the right and proper process for withdrawal, and today’s debate will take that process one step further. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has committed to being as open as possible with Parliament, and we remain committed to providing the House with regular updates on our plans to deliver on the clear mandate given by the British people to leave.

Kenneth Clarke: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Robin Walker: I will not give way, I am afraid.
That brings me to the heart of the motion, which calls on the Prime Minister to commit to publishing the Government’s plan for leaving the EU before article 50 is invoked. This country stands on the threshold of a new chapter in its history. In forging a new relationship with our neighbours in Europe, we must deliver a global Britain that can continue to be a global success, as my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Crispin Blunt) suggested. The Secretary of State has said he will set out our broad plans for doing so ahead of the notification to invoke article 50, but we must do so in a way that safeguards the vital national interest by securing the Government’s negotiating position.
The Government amendment is entirely proper and I commend it to the House. I welcome the fact that Her Majesty’s Opposition appear to accept the amendment, although I note that their Back Benchers seem to disagree. Like many on both sides of the House, I fought the referendum campaign as a remainer, but I always believed that it was right to trust the people with this decision and that their view had to be respected. I saw this fundamentally as a question of consent, and although I personally argued that my constituency might have an easier path to travel if we stayed in and fought our corner, I also said from the start that if the consent of the British people was withheld, we would all need to work harder than ever before to ensure we made a success of leaving the EU.
That is where we now stand. After the arguments and the division of the referendum, now is the time for people to come together and work together to ensure  that the UK succeeds. By supporting the Government amendment, colleagues from across the House can show they have heard the will of the people and that we will work together to make a success of it. We can move forward with the process of making this work not just for 48% or 52%, but for 100% of the people we represent.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
The House divided:
Ayes 461, Noes 89.

Question accordingly agreed to.
Main Question, as amended, put.
The House divided:
Ayes 448, Noes 75.

Question accordingly agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House recognises that leaving the EU is the defining issue facing the UK; notes the resolution on parliamentary scrutiny of the UK leaving the EU agreed by the House on 12 October 2016; recognises that it is Parliament’s responsibility to properly scrutinise the Government while respecting the decision of the British people to leave the European Union; confirms that there should be no disclosure of material that could be reasonably judged to damage the UK in any negotiations to depart from the European Union after Article 50 has been triggered; and calls on the Prime Minister to commit to publishing the Government’s plan for leaving the EU before Article 50 is invoked, consistently with the principles agreed without division by this House on 12 October; recognises that this House should respect the wishes of the United Kingdom as expressed in the referendum on 23 June; and further calls on the Government to invoke Article 50 by 31 March 2017.

BUSINESS WITHOUT DEBATE

Delegated Legislation

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Financial Services and Markets

That the draft Immigration Act 2014 (Current Accounts) (Excluded Accounts and Notification Requirements) Regulations 2016, which were laid before this House on 7 November, be approved.—(Graham Stuart.)
The Speaker’s opinion as to the decision of the Question being challenged, the Division was deferred until Wednesday 14 December (Standing Order No. 41A).
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Road Traffic

That the draft Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 (Penalty Points) (Amendment) Order 2016, which was laid before this House on 8 November, be approved.—(Graham Stuart.)
Question agreed to.

PETITION - IMPLEMENTATION OF THE 1995 AND 2011 PENSIONS ACTS

Barbara Keeley: I am grateful for the chance tonight to present a further petition calling for fair transitional arrangements for 1950s-born women affected by the changes to the state pension age. That group of women is bearing an unfair burden. When the Pensions Act 2011 was debated, Ministers promised transitional arrangements to ease that burden, but those have not materialised, leaving women across the UK facing hardship, stress and worry. I am presenting a petition on behalf of the residents of Preseli Pembrokeshire. I thank all those who signed it.
The petition states:
The Petition of residents of Preseli Pembrokeshire,
Declares that as a result of the way in which the 1995 Pension Act and the 2011 Pension Act were implemented, women born in the 1950s (on or after 6 April 1951) have unfairly borne the burden of the increase to the State Pension Age; further that hundreds of thousands of women have had significant changes imposed on them with little or no personal notice; further that implementation took place faster than promised; further that this gave no time to make alternative pension plans; and further that retirement plans have been shattered with devastating consequences.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to make fair transitional arrangements for all women born in the 1950s (on or after 6 April 1951) who have unfairly borne the burden of the increase to the State Pension Age.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.
[P001988]

Jamie and Andy Murray: Sporting Legacy

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Graham Stuart.)

Steven Paterson: It is an enormous pleasure to have the opportunity to speak on the sporting legacy of Jamie and Andy Murray, who hail from Dunblane in my constituency, and who finish the year as the world’s No. 1-ranked players in the men’s doubles and men’s singles, respectively.
At the outset, I want to offer my personal congratulations to both Jamie and his doubles partner Bruno Soares, and to Andy on what is an incredible achievement for all three of them in finishing the year as the No. 1-ranked players.

Brendan O'Hara: I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. He rightly praises the remarkable talents of Andy and Jamie Murray, but is he aware that Scotland has another world No.1 tennis player—Gordon Reid, the wheelchair world champion? He is a worthy champion, who, having developed his skills at Helensburgh lawn tennis club, went on to win the Australian open and Wimbledon in 2016, before being named world No. 1.

Steven Paterson: I am grateful for that intervention. Had my application for the debate been put in three or four days later, Gordon’s name would have been included—he had not yet achieved No. 1, but then he did, and I am very pleased that he is recognised now. Of course, he is a product of not only Helensburgh but Stirling university, and I will say something about that later.
These congratulations extend to the crucial network of support that Andy and Jamie have in their family and coaches, who play a vital role in supporting these athletes in their preparation for tournaments and in their recovery after them. In Judy Murray, who was here in Parliament earlier at a meeting I was at, we have someone who is a family member and a coach all rolled into one, and she must be immensely proud of her sons’ achievements.
The scale of these achievements can best be demonstrated in simple terms—just by looking at the records of the players. In Jamie Murray, we have the first British man in 44 years to win the US open doubles, alongside his partner, Bruno Soares. As well as the US open, the pair also won this year in Sydney, before winning the Australian open, so it has been a magnificent year. At the present count, Jamie has no fewer than 16 career titles to his name.
So far in his career Andy has won44 singles titles.These include three grand slams; 14 masters 1000 series titles, which places him ninthon the all-time list; two Olympic gold medals; and, just a few weeks ago, the title at the Association of Tennis Professionals tour final here in London. He also has two doubles titles with Jamie and an Olympicsilver medal in the mixed doubles with Laura Robson.
Back in 2014, I was able to play a small part in recognising Andy’s achievements at that point, when, as a councillor, I was able to vote in favour of conferring the freedom of the city of Stirling on him at a ceremony  in Dunblane—his home town. The freedom of the city is the highest civic honour Stirling has, allowing him the ancient right to march through the centre of Stirling with drums beating, colours flying and bayonets fixed, as well as the right to drive his sheep through the city, which I am sure he is planning on very soon.
In my contribution, I intend to consider what I see as an appropriate legacy for the tremendous sporting achievements of Jamie and Andy Murray.

Alex Chalk: Jamie and Andy Murray are two very proud Scotsmen, but they are cheered on from across the United Kingdom. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the entire United Kingdom can take great pride in their magnificent achievements?

Steven Paterson: I am grateful for that intervention because it allows me to say that in Andy and Jamie Murray we have international stars in the world of sport. They are respected and supported across the world for their achievements. They are the No.1 players in tennis.

Rebecca Pow: Like you, Mr Speaker, I come to the debate as a very keen tennis player, which is why I applaud the hon. Member for Stirling (Steven Paterson) for bringing forward this Adjournment debate. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk) that the Murrays have really helped to move tennis right on in this country—not just in Scotland, but across the board. They are an inspiration to young children, as is Judy Murray, who has helped to coach many young children and to set up many programmes. My own children started playing at the age of two in many of those programmes, which Judy Murray was key in setting up with the Lawn Tennis Association. I applaud the hon. Gentleman for bringing forward this debate, and I applaud everything the Murrays are doing that represents the nation.

Steven Paterson: The point is well made, and I will go on to say that the point of the debate is to see how we can build a fitting legacy for Jamie and Andy Murray.

Margaret Ferrier: I would like to pay tribute to the Rutherglen lawn tennis club in my constituency, which does a superb job in promoting the game of tennis, and which works to help more people to enjoy this fantastic game. Does my hon. Friend agree that we should all do our bit to encourage more people to take up the sport so that, hopefully, we will have more Andy Murrays and Jamie Murrays?

Steven Paterson: Yes, indeed. There are clubs all over the country—not just Rutherglen—that are doing that, and my hon. Friend’s intervention speaks for all of them.

Jim Shannon: I too congratulate the hon. Gentleman on introducing this debate. Jamie and Andy Murray are an inspiration for many young tennis stars in my constituency who, over the past month or so, have been playing tennis in Greyabbey, Ballywalter, Donaghadee, Newtownards, and Comber. In all those places, young people are inspired by the skills of Jamie and Andy Murray within the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

Steven Paterson: That is right.
This debate is about investing in this legacy and considering how it is to be achieved. I see that, first, in terms of developing the sporting infrastructure and facilities that allow future generations of athletes to achieve the heights the Murray brothers have reached, and—who knows?—perhaps even to challenge the considerable records of these two fine tennis players. Secondly, just as importantly, it is about widening access and opportunities for everyone to participate in sport.
I want to say this about the values that sport can instil: sporting competition is a good thing.I took part in lots of sports when I was at school and since, from football to athletics to karate—although regrettably not tennis, I am afraid—and I always played to win. I was at school at a time when there was a movement saying that sporting competition was perhaps somehow a bad thing because it meant there were losers as well as winners. I rejected that thesis then and I reject it now. There are tangible benefits both to children and adults in participating in competitive sport.

Kirsten Oswald: I heard this week about Thornliebank, Giffnock, Braidbar and St John’s Primary Schools in my constituency joining a number of others in attaining a Sport Scotland gold award. Part of the inspiration for them, particularly the children from Thornliebank, was playing tennis with Judy Murray. It is vital that children have the opportunity to do as my hon. Friend says and participate in all kinds of sport.

Steven Paterson: Absolutely. There are obviously particular physical benefits as we face a generation where obesity is a major issue. There are also mental benefits in terms of setting and achieving goals, and the hard work that has to go into being successful in sport.

Rebecca Pow: The hon. Gentleman is making a good point about the benefits of sport. Perhaps he read about the recent survey by the British Journal of Sports Medicine—this was reported in The Daily Telegraph and various other papers last week—that said that playing racket sports, but particularly tennis, reduces one’s risk of death at any given age by 50%, so I think that Mr Speaker, as a keen tennis player, has many, many years ahead of him. That makes the point that we should do everything we can to encourage more people to take part in this sport.

Steven Paterson: Yes indeed. I did not read that, but it does not surprise me. There are clear benefits to participating in sport. I am sure that the Speaker is extremely pleased by the hon. Lady’s mention of him.
I was talking about the fact that there are winners and losers in competitive sport. Losing is part of life, just as it is part of sport, so it is important to learn what it is to get back up and win next time. That is a really important point that is sometimes overlooked in relation to competitive sport and why we should support it. Anyone who has followed Andy Murray’s career, in particular, can only be inspired by his reaction to heart-breaking losses at various times. That has forged him into the formidable champion, and world No. 1, that he is today. It is important to take the lessons from sport into other parts of life.
Sports infrastructure is integral to affording opportunities to young sportspersons to develop their skills and maximise their potential. You may be aware, Mr Speaker, that Judy Murray is currently awaiting a decision following a public inquiry into a planning application for a world-class tennis centre at Park of Keir on the outskirts of Dunblane that would include a tennis academy to nurture the next generation of tennis players. I do not intend to comment directly on the application, because that is not appropriate. It will be determined on the basis of the relevant planning legislation once the planning reporter makes their recommendation. However, I wholeheartedly support the concept of a tennis academy that can be created as a lasting legacy of the Murray brothers and provide the opportunity for the champions of the future to realise their potential. Speaking as the Member of Parliament for Stirling, and someone born and bred in the Stirling area, I sincerely hope that the academy can proceed and benefit local children and young people from the Dunblane and Stirling areas.

Hannah Bardell: I congratulate my hon. Friend on bringing this debate to the Floor of the House. As a graduate of the University of Stirling, I can speak from first-hand experience about the fantastic facilities in his constituency that I benefited from as a student. Does he agree that just as formal spaces for children and young people are important, so are informal spaces? In recent years, there has been an encroachment on our civil spaces, with signs saying “No ball games”, and the areas in which children may play has been reduced. Does he agree that it is important that children are encouraged to get out into our communities and to play in the streets and local parks?

Steven Paterson: That point is extremely well made. When I was growing up, “No ball games” signs seemed to be on every patch of grass and piece of ground. It is no surprise that football, for example, is on the wane in Scotland, as it has been for some time. I think it is partly because of the situation that my hon. Friend has described, and we need to turn it around.

Ian Murray: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on bringing the debate to the Chamber and being so generous with his time. Given the athleticism that is required to be world No. 1 in any sport, he may be disappointed to hear that I am not related to the Murrays. The hon. Gentleman is talking about facilities. Will he congratulate Liberton High School in my constituency, where the headteacher, the parent council, the staff and pupils came together to deliver new tennis courts at the school, to provide those facilities for the future?

Steven Paterson: The hon. Gentleman makes an extremely good point. That was part of the discussion that we had at our meeting earlier today, and we will take it forward. I am conscious of the fact that time is racing on, so I will make some progress.
Stirling University is, as has been mentioned, Scotland’s university for sporting excellence. There has been a lot of investment in facilities, including the National Tennis Centre, a facility well known to the Murray brothers and to Gordon Reid. As Scotland’s university for sporting excellence, Stirling is committed to developing a lasting  sporting legacy in the community and beyond. One of the ways in which it does so is through coaching. I understand that Judy Murray was on campus yesterday delivering the Tennis on the Road programme, which trained more than 20 students to deliver starter tennis lessons in primary schools.
The university works in partnership with Tennis Scotland and the Tennis Foundation, which is responsible for disability and education tennis. As part of that partnership, the university has two graduate tennis co-ordinators who study for masters degrees part time and work in graduate assistant roles at the university. One has responsibility for supporting grassroots tennis and getting more people into the game. The other delivers coaching for students and staff below team level from beginner upwards, as well as running tennis-based fitness classes. As far as widening access to the local community is concerned, more than 250 people—from three-year-olds to people in their 50s, and everything in between—come to the campus on a weekly basis to take part in the community programmes. Some excellent work is going on there.
I am conscious of the time, and I do not want to eat into the Minister’s time or anyone else’s.

Anne McLaughlin: rose—

Steven Paterson: I will take one last intervention.

Anne McLaughlin: I thank my hon. Friend for taking an intervention. In case he did not know, in September this year Andy Murray held a sporting tournament in Glasgow, at which he raised £305,000 for charity. Half the money went to UNICEF UK to help children in Syria and the other half went to Young People’s Futures, an incredible organisation in Possilpark, in my constituency. It operates on a tiny little budget, and the money has made such a difference to it. We should all thank Andy Murray for not forgetting that his fans got him where he is, as he has said, and for paying them back in such a way.

Steven Paterson: That says everything about Andy, Jamie and the family. It is exactly the kind of approach that they take: they use their positions to do the right thing. Jamie and Andy Murray richly deserve their legacy after years of dedication and hard work in tennis. As I said two weeks ago in this Chamber, the Murray brothers are the pride of Dunblane, and we salute their superb achievements in the sport, in reaching the pinnacle of tennis and becoming world No. 1s.
I hope that we continue to build on the enthusiasm and inspiration that these sporting heroes generate for tennis and, indeed, for other sports. I hope that we will develop and enhance sporting facilities and increase the accessibility of sport for everyone, irrespective of their background. If we succeed in doing so, the legacy of Jamie and Andy Murray’s sporting achievements will be to make them the trailblazers of a golden generation of sporting champions. That is a goal we should set ourselves and achieve.

Gavin Newlands: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Steven Paterson) on securing tonight’s debate,  and I thank him and the Minister for allowing me to make a contribution. I thank you, Mr Speaker, for ensuring that the debate was scheduled this evening immediately following the hearing of the all-party group on Scottish sport with Judy Murray and Blane Dodds, the chair of Tennis Scotland, on the Murray legacy. May I put on record my thanks, and that of the all-party group, to Judy and Blane for attending the hearing? It was a fascinating talk, and it was an absolute privilege for us all. I thank you, Mr Speaker, for attending the meeting as well. That was much appreciated.
The all-party group on Scottish sport is keen to offer as much assistance as possible to support the growth of tennis in Scotland, and it is anxious that we do not miss the opportunity to build on the success of the Murray family. The success of the Murrays is fantastic for Scottish and British tennis, and we have all—none more than you, Mr Speaker—enjoyed watching them rise to become the best tennis players in the world. However, the story of their path to success raises some serious questions about the state of British tennis, and how about supportive the system has been and is for emerging talent.
Following the final of the European under-16 championships and after receiving advice from a young Rafael Nadal, a 15-year-old Andy Murray realised that, if he was to become the tennis champion that he is now, he would have to move away from the UK. The infrastructure to support emerging talent was very poor. The lack of indoor courts combined with coaching issues and the horrendous British weather meant that British tennis could not support his development as a player. That was 14 years ago and, sadly, the situation has not improved as much as we would have hoped or expected. The best way in which we can live up to the legacy of Andy and Jamie is to ensure that young people, regardless of their background, have access to facilities and coaching, and to ensure that promising young tennis players do not have to travel abroad to access appropriate facilities and elite coaching.
As we have heard, Scotland well and truly punches above its weight in tennis. Not only are Andy and Jamie world No. 1s, but it was confirmed last weekend that Gordon Reid is the end-of-season world No. 1 in men’s wheelchair tennis. Scotland currently provides the Davis cup captain and the immediate past Fed cup captain in Leon Smith and Judy Murray herself. However, despite our world-leading position, serious questions and concerns exist about how tennis in Scotland is supported; hence the decision of the all-party group to investigate what work is being done to establish a Murray legacy. The picture, to this point, is not good. Despite Scotland having 8.5% of the UK’s population, Tennis Scotland only receives just under £800,000 of funding from the Lawn Tennis Association, despite its budget of £63 million. That represents 1.3% of the LTA budget.
The Scottish weather is well known and well loved, we might say—[Interruption.] Hon. Members are correct to say that that is, indeed, a huge exaggeration. Despite our climate, however, we do not appear to have our fair share of accessible indoor tennis courts. In fact, according to a BBC report, there are only 102 indoor tennis courts in Scotland compared with 1,494 in England. That is not just the responsibility of the LTA; it is the responsibility of all politicians, Governments, local authorities and governing bodies to ensure that we have the correct facilities to cater for the needs of any youngsters who want to pick up a racket and start playing tennis.
During the meeting, Blane Dodds said that we have one court for 48,000 people in Scotland, whereas it is one for 26,600 people in the rest of the UK. He also said that the need, demand and opportunity are greater in Scotland than anywhere else in the UK, and that partnership working and multi-sport facilities will be key as we move forwards. I am not the constituency MP, so saying this is not so incumbent on me as it is on my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling, but Judy Murray’s excellent proposal for a multi-sport facility at Park of Keir near Stirling is exactly the sort of project that should be supported if we are to make real progress. This exciting proposition represents a huge investment, and I wish her luck in securing approval for it.
Politicians are quick to send out a tweet to congratulate the Murray brothers on their success, and it only right and proper that we acknowledge their success and the contribution they have made to Scottish and British sport. However, the most fitting way that we can respect, acknowledge and celebrate the success of the Murrays is by establishing a Murray legacy to ensure future generations benefit from the success of Andy and Jamie.
During the meeting, Judy spoke passionately about the urgency of the situation in that we risk losing this great opportunity forever, and of her frustration at the governing bodies. She talked about how she started Tennis on the Road, which amounted to Judy and another coach going around the country in a van loaded with equipment. Managing to utilise that small resource, Judy and her coaching partner coached more than 8,000 people. She said that we need more vans, coaches and courts, but that such facilities need to be accessible to all. She wants the country to benefit from her 25 years of coaching experience. She closed by saying that, at the end of the day, we need the LTA to release more money for tennis in Scotland.
In conclusion, now is the time to cement a legacy from the achievements of Andy and Jamie. It is incumbent on all politicians and governing bodies alike to ensure that the unique opportunity to build on the success of the Murrays is not missed.

John Bercow: I thank colleagues very warmly for what they have said, and I think they will be thanked outside this place as well. Follow-through is key of course.

Tracey Crouch: I thank the hon. Member for Stirling (Steven Paterson) for taking this opportunity to formally celebrate two of our great British sportsmen. I also thank the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands) for his contribution.
I am sure you will agree, Mr Speaker, that it is a pleasure to take some time out to reflect on success and give credit where it is due. Like yourself, I have followed tennis through the years—the highs, the lows, the expectant British crowd and the frustrating near misses—so I feel pretty lucky to be the Minister for Sport in an era of such success for these two great players. If I may, I will add a third great player into the mix, Gordon Reid, who has already been mentioned and whose achievement in becoming the world No. 1 wheelchair tennis player last weekend by making the final of the Wheelchair Masters  at Lea Valley was phenomenal, especially after winning the Paralympic singles in Rio alongside Wimbledon and the Australian Open.
Andy Murray’s achievement in becoming the world No. 1 tennis player of 2016 is an incredible testament to his dedication, professionalism, skill and sheer will to win. In winning both Wimbledon and Olympic gold for the second time, Andy’s place as one of Britain’s all-time sporting greats is assured. To win both tournaments and then defeat Novak Ðokovic at the World Finals in London last month to retain his No. 1 position is nothing short of incredible. That does not even begin to cover his exploits representing Great Britain with such distinction in the Davis cup, which I will come back to later.
Beyond his achievements on the courts, Andy is also a genuinely nice guy, making him an inspirational role model to many. Members may recall that Andy was chosen to carry the Union flag at the opening ceremony of the Olympics. The night before the ceremony, we had a photo call with the flag, which was enormous. He managed to drape it over Princess Anne, making news bulletins around the world. I was lucky enough to be on the other side, and remained free from what was basically flag carnage. We ended up having a long chat while we were waiting for all the photographers in the bank to get ready and get their positions. Afterwards, people asked me what I had talked to Andy Murray about for so long—whether it was tennis tactics, or investment in the future, and so on. I confess that Andy and I were talking about the babies we had left behind—his daughter and my son were born within a few days of each other. We often forget that international sports stars’ dedication and commitment quite often take them away from their families. To still achieve the great deal that he did in Rio, despite that being the case, is something else we should applaud and appreciate.
The debate rightly recognises the contributions of both Murray brothers. Jamie has climbed to the top of the doubles game without perhaps the same level of public scrutiny and expectation. His profile was raised after winning the 2007 Wimbledon mixed doubles with Jelena Jankovic. Since then, his increased success in men’s doubles, winning the Australian and US Opens this year, has culminated in his and his partner’s rise to become the world No. 1 doubles pair at the end of 2016.
I thought the sibling rivalry in my childhood was something, but sibling rivalry must be quite special in the Murray household, when one brother holds two Wimbledon titles but the other won theirs first. As my sister is not in a position to answer back, I think it is only fair that the record shows that I always won.
The sheer dedication it has taken for Jamie and Andy to reach the pinnacle of their sport has been immense. But talent must be nurtured and supported. Of course, not every aspiring tennis player is raised by Judy Murray—that might be a hard task even for her. But her inspirational leadership, nurturing her sons’ talent and enthusiasm, along with her six years as GB Federation cup captain, has led the way to a new golden era in British tennis. Her work on the Department’s Women and Sport Advisory Board has also played a leading role in championing women’s sport. If I end up being half the mother that Judy is, I will be extremely proud.
One of the most notable contributions that the Murray brothers have made to tennis in this country was made together. The Davis cup win of 2015 was Great Britain’s first for 79 years. Both Murray brothers played crucial roles in that historic win, as did the fans who in both London and Glasgow ensured a roaring home crowd. While 2016 saw a narrow loss to Argentina in the semi-finals, I look forward eagerly—as, I think, many other hon. Members do—to the 2017 competition.
Such global victories have undeniably made Andy and Jamie catalysts for British tennis at home. The chasing pack of other British tennis players has undoubted links to the inspiration of having such world-class role models on our team. With Kyle Edmund, now in the top 50 and rising, and other leading doubles players such as Dominic Inglot improving their rankings, the Davis cup is certainly looking healthy for Great Britain for many years to come. Gordon Reid is inspiring teammates in wheelchair tennis. As well as winning singles gold in Rio, Gordon won silver in the wheelchair doubles with teenager Alfie Hewett, who is seen as a future world No. 1. I congratulate Great Britain’s fourth world No. 1 of 2016, quad tennis player Andy Lapthorne, who won silver in the quad singles in Rio and bronze in the doubles alongside Jamie Burdekin.
UK Sport’s record investment in Paralympics GB paid further dividends with Jordanne Whiley and Lucy Shuker taking bronze in the women’s doubles.

Rebecca Pow: Will the Minister give way?

Tracey Crouch: I do not have time, I am afraid. I would if we had a longer debate.
I must mention some more of the recent successes that British women have been enjoying. Johanna Konta’s meteoric rise to the world’s top 10 has been a fantastic development for her and the women’s game. With Heather Watson and Naomi Broady improving steadily and Laura Robson returning after injury, British women’s tennis is proving to be very healthy.
These players are an inspiration to up-and-coming players and the grassroots of the game in this country. Sport England statistics show that over 428,0000 people play tennis at least once a week—over 20,000 more since London 2012. Disabled player numbers have increased by nearly 50% since 2012, rising to over 30,000.
Sport England and sportscotland support the LTA in its objective to increase participation in the sport through their current £17.4 million investment. Since 2010, Sport England has invested £8.2 million in 278 national lottery-funded projects. The hon. Member for Stirling is right to mention that Stirling University is home to the Scottish National Tennis Centre. It is very important in the development of Scottish tennis, which is being enjoyed by both the public and promising Scottish players.
The LTA provides support to British players and tennis generally across the United Kingdom. The hon. Gentleman mentioned some of the projects and schemes being funded. Following the Davis cup victory, the LTA launched Tennis for Kids to inspire five to eight-year-olds to pick up a racket and play for the first time—perhaps not the two-year-olds my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow) mentioned—and over 13,000 children were introduced to the sport through a free six-week training course and given a free racket to keep playing.
Time is very short, but it is important to remember that the great Union between us has been the cornerstone of our prosperity in the past and it is vital to our future success. Andy and Jamie Murray are a wonderful illustration of that success both now, when at the pinnacle of their sport, and in the future, when they will continue to inspire millions across the United Kingdom and beyond. They are a credit to their country, our country, their  sport and their family. I congratulate them again on their phenomenal performances in 2016 and look forward to further great achievements in the years ahead.
Question put and agreed to.
House adjourned.